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
January 28 , 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.
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 and December 5th Meetings
Board Report
Director’s Report
Discussion Items
a) Review and discuss the Genoa-Hugo C113 school district grant reserve request
b) Discuss the board’s legislative priorities
c) Discuss the school district match percentage changes
d) Review and discuss proposed changes to the grant application evaluation tool
e) Discuss venues for the May 19-20 BEST Grant application evaluation meetings
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
Public Comment
Adjournment
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:
Location:
201 E. Colfax Ave.,
Denver, CO 80203
October 22, 2014
1:00 p.m.
Lyndon Burnett – Chair
Ken Haptonstall
Kathy Gebhardt
Graduate
ready
Capital Construction Assistance Board Members
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 So moved by
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 he would be
applied to the bond. The CCAB Chair explained the policies surrounded bonds and investors in 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 the original project scopes, while eligible capital construction needs for the grant, 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 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:
The Broadmoor
1 Lake Ave., El Pomar Room
Colorado Springs, CO 80906
th
December 5 , 2014
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 – 1:00 p.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, Jay Hoskinson, Lola
Underwood
IV.
Approve Agenda
•
V.
Approve Previous Minutes from October 15th, October 22nd, and November 5th Meetings
•
VI.
The CCAB Chair called for a motion to approve the agenda
o So moved by Denise Pearson
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 15th, October
22nd, and November 5th, 2014 meetings
o So moved by Matt Throop
o Cyndi Wright 2nd the motion
o Discussion: Kathy Gebhardt asked that the October 22nd minutes be tabled until the January
meeting. Ms. Gebhardt felt the minutes did not adequately represent public comment and
needed revising. Regarding the October 22nd minutes, the CCAB Chair asked that an error
stating his attendance at the Hi-Plains ribbon cutting ceremony be corrected; the CCAB Chair
visited Hi-Plains School the week following the ceremony.
o Motion to approve the October 15th and November 5th minutes carried unanimously.
Board Report
The CCAB Chair told the board he was planning to attend the Ft. Lupton ribbon cutting ceremony on
Monday, December 8th.
Kathy Gebhardt informed the board she had an opportunity to meet with legislators and senators at the
CASB conference. Ms. Gebhardt explained she had spoken with Senator Merrifield about his plans to put
forward a bill increasing the COP cap on BEST, and that she would be meeting with him on January 12th.
Ms. Gebhardt also spoke of her opportunity to discuss BEST with members of the construction industry,
garnering their support for the 2014-15 BEST legislative platform.
Kathy Gebhardt also spoke about Senator Steadman’s public support of the BEST program and the need
to continue bringing in marijuana revenues for the program. The CCAB Chair explained that he
understands that Senator Steadman intends to run a bill to remedy the marijuana tax-free transfer issue
that appears to have the support of other legislators.
Kathy Gebhardt talked about continuing the CCAB legislative subcommittee meetings to further figure
out their 2014-15 and 2015-16 legislative platforms.
The CCAB Vice-Chair told the CCAB he was planning to attend the Rocky Mountain Deaf School (RMDS)
ribbon cutting ceremony on Saturday, December 6th, 2014. The CCAB Vice-Chair clarified the ceremony
would begin at 10 a.m. Tim Reed spoke of his pride of the BEST program’s affiliation with RMDS and the
building RMDS had constructed. Mr. Reed explained that the new RMDS building allowed the school to
continue to great work they’ve been doing.
VII.
Director’s Report
Scott Newell informed the CCAB that employees of the Colorado Lottery would be attending the Rocky
Mountain Deaf School ribbon cutting ceremony, explaining that the Lottery would be taking video
footage of the ceremony that could be used as publicity for BEST.
Scott Newell provided information for upcoming ribbon cutting ceremonies for the Rocky Mountain Deaf
School and Ft. Lupton, Sheridan, Haxtun, Otis, and Dolores school districts.
Scott Newell informed the CCAB that the Division had begun preparing for the Joint Budget Committee
hearing on January 18th.
Scott Newell informed the CCAB that there was a BEST presentation scheduled after the day’s meeting
to discuss some of the legislative changes that occurred last year, the 2014-15 BEST legislative platform,
and funding sources. The CCAB Chair confirmed the location of the presentation.
Scott Newell explained that the application for the BEST 2015-16 cycle was launching in the first part of
January. Mr. Newell explained that the Division would be hosting two public webinars on December 16th
and January 13th detailing the application process, waiver applications, budget spreadsheets, and due
diligence.
Scott Newell told the CCAB that the final version of the BEST stakeholder video was available for them to
watch. The CCAB watched the video and the CCAB Chair expressed that the video will be a great
outreach tool going forward.
The CCAB Chair called for a short break at 1:20 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 1:30 p.m.
VIII.
Public Hearing (1:30 p.m.)
a) Rulemaking Hearing: Public hearing regarding the BEST Rules - 1 CCR 303-3. This is a time for the
public to voice their opinion regarding the BEST Rules and for the Assistance Board to evaluate
whether any additional changes need to be made – The CCAB Chair recited the rule making hearing
script approved by the board’s Attorney General. Upon reciting the script, the CCAB Chair asked if
any members of the public wished to comment on the proposed rule changes. There was no public
comment. The CCAB Chair asked if any members of the board wished to comment on the proposed
rule changes. Denise Pearson asked if Section 8.1.5.1 of the rules could better clarify unforeseen or
unanticipated events. Mr. Newell stated that the Division was unable to further define the terms.
b) Assistance Board vote to consider the adoption of the BEST Rules – 1 CCR 303-3
• The CCAB Chair called for a motion to adopt the BEST Rules – 1 CCR 303-3
o So moved by David Tadlock
o Tim Reed 2nd the motion
o Motion to adopt the BEST Rules – 1 CCR 303-3 was approved unanimously
IX.
Public Hearing (1:45 p.m.)
a) Rulemaking Hearing: Public hearing regarding the Public School Facility Construction Guidelines – 1
CCR 303-1. This is a time for the public to voice their opinion regarding the Public School Facility
Construction Guidelines and for the Assistance Board to evaluate whether any additional changes
need to be made – Scott Newell provided some background on the amendments made to the
current Public School Facility Construction Guidelines. Mr. Newell explained that the Division had
created a subcommittee comprised of industry experts to revise the guidelines, and had held
webinars for public feedback regarding the changes made. Mr. Newell explained that while some
of the comments submitted had been included in the guidelines revision, others had not.
The CCAB Chair called for a short break at 1:35 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 1:45 p.m.
Kathy Gebhardt asked that a typographical error in the amended Public School Facility
Construction Guidelines be fixed.
The CCAB Chair recited the rule making hearing script approved by the board’s Attorney General.
Upon reciting the script, the CCAB chair asked if any members of the public wished to comment on
the proposed changes to the guidelines. There was no public comment. The CCAB Chair asked if
any members of the board wished to comment on the proposed changes to the guidelines. Matt
Throop asked if there were any timelines for additional revisions. Scott Newell explained that the
Public School Facility Construction Guidelines could be amended at any time. Mr. Newell noted
that the Division recommends the board check the guidelines every year to see if any revisions
need to be made. Matt Throop responded that the proposed changes made for a good outline, but
that it may need to be looked at again at a later date. The CCAB Chair added that revisions would
need to be made as construction materials, costs, and environments change.
Scott Newell told the CCAB that Division of Fire Protection and Department of Health guidelines
had been submitted to be included in the Public School Facility Construction Guidelines but had
been left out of the document as they are too specific. With that said, Mr. Newell clarified that the
updated guidelines referenced the Division of Fire Protection and Department of Health guidelines
in such a way that should any updates be made to either of their respective guidelines, the Public
School Facility Construction Guidelines would remain current and consistent with those changes.
Mr. Newell informed the board that they were able to edit the document at the meeting if they
wished to include any additional information. The CCAB discussed AHERA and asbestos regulations
as outlined in section 4.1.8. of the updated guidelines. Mr. Newell explained to the board that for
instances in which specific codes have been referenced in the guidelines, the Division would have
to buy copies of those codes and keep them on file. The CCAB and members of the public
discussed the policies surrounding regularly updated codes cited in the Public School Facility
Guidelines, as well as discussed state versus local jurisdiction regarding building codes. During this
discussion, Cyndi Wright asked if school district’s following local codes under local jurisdictions
different to those being followed by the state could count work done to bring a building up to
state code as unforeseen circumstances regarding grant reserves. The board discussed potential
problems associated with Ms. Wright’s question and the need for appropriate language pertaining
to local and state jurisdictions regarding codes. Scott Newell clarified that the majority of cases like
the one Ms. Wright raised have qualified for grant reserves based on unknown and unforeseen
events. The CCAB Chair asked Ms. Wright if she had any proposed changes to the language
pertaining to codes within the revised guidelines. Ms. Wright reiterated Tim Reed’s assertion that
the language should remain consistent with meeting the State building requirements. The CCAB
clarified that the Public School Facility Construction Guidelines are not mandatory rules for school
districts to follow, but rather recommended practices for Colorado K-12 design and construction.
The CCAB discussed the importance of the role of Division staff in properly educating grant
applicants and grantees on the proper usage for guidelines. Mr. Doug Hahn, an architect with LKA
Partners, clarified that local jurisdictions are bound to review construction projects through State
adopted rules.
b) Assistance Board vote to consider the adoption of the Public School Facility Construction
Guidelines – 1 CCR 303-1
• The CCAB Chair called for a motion to adopt the Public School Facility Construction Guidelines –
1CCR 303-1
o So moved by Matt Throop
o Cyndi Wright 2nd the motion
o Motion to adopt the Public School Facility Construction Guidelines – 1 CCR 303-1 was
approved unanimously
X.
Action Items
a) Review and adopt Resolution 14-2 concerning statutory changes to eliminate medicinal marijuana
tax-free transfers – Scott Newell clarified the purpose of Resolution 14-2, stating that it aims to
maximize marijuana excise tax revenues into the Capital Construction Assistance fund. Mr. Newell
clarified that approving the document would enable the CCAB to bring the resolution before the
state board in hopes of garnering their support for eliminating marijuana tax-free transfers. Mr.
Newell added that state board approval would demonstrate that both boards were on the same
page regarding marijuana excise tax revenues for school capital construction.
The CCAB Chair recited Resolution 14-2.
• The CCAB Chair called for a motion to adopt Resolution 14-2
o So moved by David Tadlock
o Kathy Gebhardt 2nd the motion
o Discussion: Kathy Gebhardt made a motion to amend Resolution 14-2 to include language
stating the resolution and its proposed changes are consistent with the constitution and voter
intent.
o Ken Haptonstall 2nd the motion
o Motion to adopt Resolution 14-2 as amended approved unanimously
b) Review proposed procedure for returning completed lease-purchase grant proceeds and instruct
the Division to develop a formal policy and contract for returning excess funds to completed leasepurchase grant projects – Scott Newell outlined the procedure proposed by the Division for
returning remaining Lease-Purchase balances to grantees that had provided matching money
bonds. Mr. Newell explained that the procedure was broken down into sections: summary, issue,
and potential remedy.
Scott Newell explained that the Division had thoroughly investigated options for returning unspent
Lease-Purchase proceeds alongside the CDE controller, the treasurer’s office, and the Division’s
Attorney General. Mr. Newell told the CCAB that a viable option was cash disbursements. Mr.
Newell informed the CCAB that the cash disbursements would be one-time payments to fulfil what
was remaining from closed lease-purchase grant projects which provided matching money bond
proceeds as the source of match. Mr. Newell clarified that the disbursements would be paid from
the Assistance Fund rather than bond proceeds. Mr. Newell clarified that a cash disbursement
could be used for capital improvements pertaining to the project for which the original grant was
awarded, or for capital improvements within the school district. Mr. Newell explained that the way
the statute defines the Assistance Fund would not allow for the money to be used elsewhere, such
as a capital reserve fund. Mr. Newell clarified that there would be two stipulations regarding
eligibility for the cash disbursements: that the grantee’s share is greater than $1000 and that the
grantee has qualified uses for the dollars. Mr. Newell explained that, if the procedure was
approved by the board, the Division would draft a contract for the grantees, which would include
the intended use for the funds. Mr. Newell clarified that the funds would be a one-time payment
and would not be tracked like a cash grant. Mr. Newell explained the funds would be a retroactive,
one-time payment awarded to closed projects. Mr. Newell further explained that the contract
would include a statement that the grantee would relinquish further interest on proceeds in the
state expense account, which would be instead applied to debt service payments. Mr. Newell
clarified that the procedure would be applied to all Lease-Purchase projects with a match provided
through matching money bonds.
The CCAB discussed the logistics of the procedure and bringing the matter back to the board if it
was affected by any future policy changes. Mr. Newell informed the CCAB that the Division was
considering options for districts to sell their own bonds rather than going through the State
Treasurer financing. Mr. Newell explained that by selling their own bonds, the district would still be
putting proceeds into an account with the State’s trustee so the Division can still pay vendors, but
the district would automatically retain any savings. Mr. Newell clarified that this approach would
not be more expensive for the district. Mr. Newell further clarified that the Division would still pay
survey and closing costs and districts would not be asked to put up any additional costs. Mr. Newell
explained that the Division was currently planning on issuing a check for the amount remaining of a
district’s match.
Mr. Newell explained that the Division was still finalizing logistics with CDE’s accounting
department. The CCAB discussed the necessity of the grantee to prove the money had been spent
on capital improvement projects. Mr. Newell clarified that the grantee will sign the contract and be
under no obligation to prove that the money was spent according to the terms of the payment. Mr.
Newell further clarified that the Division wanted to avoid essentially managing another grant. Mr.
Newell informed the CCAB that he would be working with CDE’s contracts administrator and BEST’s
Attorney General to evaluate whether or not a timeline will be assigned to districts, in which they
have to allocate the returned funds. Mr. Newell reiterated that the Division does not wish to
manage another grant. Mr. Newell clarified that the BEST Attorney General reviewed the proposed
procedure and believes it will comply with the Division’s previous guidance from the Audit
Committee.
• The CCAB Chair called for a motion to instruct the Division to further investigate the procedure
for returning completed lease-purchase grant proceeds and instruct the Division to develop a
formal policy and contract for returning excess funds to completed lease-purchase grant
projects
o Scott Newell suggested calling for a motion to instruct the Division to develop a formal
policy and contract for returning excess funds to completed lease-purchase grant projects
with updates for the board
o So moved by Ken Haptonstall
o Denise Pearson 2nd the motion;
o Motion to instruct the Division to develop a formal policy and contract for returning
excess funds to completed lease-purchase grant projects with updates for the board was
approved unanimously
XI.
Discussion Items
a) Discuss Capital Construction Assistance Board meeting protocol – Scott Newell informed the board
that this discussion item was brought forward by a board member. Denise Pearson explained one
of her favorite things about serving on the Capital Construction Assistance Board was everyone’s
passion. Ms. Pearson explained that this passion, however, can sometimes lead to one or two
voices dominating the discussion. Ms. Pearson wanted to kindly remind all members of the board
to let others speak before speaking again themselves.
The CCAB Chair said he strives to include everyone’s voice in the conversation, but that he isn’t
always successful and will remain cognizant of Ms. Pearson’s request. The CCAB Chair continued to
say that he would try to develop a system of sorts to better recognize and include board members
joining the meeting via phone.
Kathy Gebhardt added that she appreciates the flexibility exhibited by the board regarding
protocol. Ms. Gebhardt clarified that she appreciates the board’s willingness to engage with the
public and welcome public comment to the discussion. The CCAB Chair concurred with Ms.
Gebhardt’s statement, citing that the public’s contributions are valuable.
XII.
Future Meetings
•
•
XIII.
January 28, 2015 - 10:00 a.m. Location: 201 E. Colfax Avenue, Room 101, Denver, CO 80203
- Mr. Newell pointed out that the January 28th meeting would be held at 10:00 a.m. as opposed to
the usual meeting time of 1:00 p.m.
February 25, 2015 - 1:00 p.m. Location: 201 E. Colfax Avenue, Room 101, Denver, CO 80203
Public Comment
Charles Schultz, a resident of Park County, and Brian Christensen, Superintendent of Akron School
District R-1, thanked the CCAB for their continued efforts regarding returning remaining Lease-Purchase
funds to grant recipients. Becky Minnis, Superintendent of Park County School District Re-2, reiterated
Mr. Schultz’s and Mr. Christensen’s thanks, informing the board that returned remaining Lease-Purchase
funds would make a huge difference to Park County School District.
Frank Reeves, Superintendent of Genoa-Hugo School District, thanked the CCAB for their services and
help in rural school districts, citing the board as helping to put rural schools on an equal playing field
with urban and suburban school districts. Mr. Reeves extended a special thank you to Division director
Scott Newell and Division staff member Jay Hoskinson.
Representatives for Genoa Hugo School District came before the CCAB to discuss a recent issue with
their BEST FY2012-13 PK-12 Addition and Renovation project. Despite a 2011 AHERA report identifying
block filler as a concern, the environmental consultant hired by Genoa-Hugo neither tested for ACM in
the block filler previously flagged as a concern nor included block filler in the scope of the abatement
work. As a result, block filler was not included in the project’s budget. Toward the end of the project, the
block filler tested positive for ACM. Consequently, the project was significantly delayed and substantial
additional costs incurred by the school districts as a strategy for removing the ACM was developed. Due
to the issue arising toward the closure of the project, contingency funds had already been allocated to
cover other costs, resulting in the school district using its reserve fund to cover the additional costs
incurred.
Mr. Reeves explained to the CCAB that he had come before them to request that grant reserve funds be
issued to Genoa-Hugo to compensate for the environmental consultant’s oversight and the resulting
costs incurred by the school district. Mr. Reeves explained to the CCAB that the school district was
considering taking legal action against the consultant but were concerned about such a costly and timeconsuming pursuit. Mr. Reeves clarified that the school district was considering all other avenues
besides legal action, such as mediation, and exhausting all other options. Doug Stevens, the lawyer
representing Genoa-Hugo, informed the CCAB that the consultant acknowledges that they failed to
identify the block filler as an issue. Mr. Stevens clarified that they had yet to discuss the costs incurred as
a result of this oversight with the consultant. Mr. Stevens informed the CCAB that they had come before
the board to discuss the oversight as an unforeseeable event as defined in the BEST rules and
regulations. Mr. Stevens reiterated Mr. Reeves’ statement that arbitration and legal action would be
costly and time-consuming, and their belief that the oversight fits within the structure of the BEST rules
as an unforeseen and unanticipated event. Mr. Stevens clarified that the school district was seeking
$107,000 in grant reserves.
Tim Reed stated that the consultant was culpable for the oversight and $107,000 did not seem like a
large enough amount to cover the additional costs incurred by the school district as a result of the
oversight. Doug Stevens explained that the total amount of costs incurred had yet to be determined and
the $107,000 is believed to fit within the constraints of the BEST rules regarding grant reserves.
Frank Reeves clarified the 2011 AHERA document was at the school and made available to the
consultant and other figures associated with the project. Mr. Reeves clarified that the block filler had
been identified as a potential problem in earlier AHERA reports as well. When asked why the school
district’s owner’s representative missed the oversight too, Quentin Rockwell, Genoa-Hugo’s owner’s
representative with Wember, explained that he had engaged in a thorough review with the consultant,
in which nothing conclusive was stated regarding the block filler needing to be mitigated. Mr. Rockwell
explained the school district hired an abatement consultant during the first phase of the project in the
summer of 2013. After the first abatement consultant was terminated in the fall of 2013, another
abatement consultant was hired. Mr. Rockwell explained that both consultants failed to recognize the
block filler as an issue.
Scott Newell stated that it was unfortunate that the school district was caught in the middle of an
unpleasant circumstance, but that the timing of the oversight was an issue for the Division. Mr. Newell
explained that the Division staff considers the scope of the oversight to be a known condition, failing to
fit within the parameters of unforeseen circumstances as defined by the BEST rules, and therefore
ineligible for grant reserves. Mr. Newell acknowledged Genoa-Hugo’s concern regarding the costs and
time required for pursuing litigation, and reiterated that although there are grant reserves available,
issuing them to the school district would deviate from what the program’s rule state grant reserves can
be used for.
The representatives for Genoa-Hugo clarified that $186,000 was taken out of their fund to pay for
abatement, resulting in technology and furniture for the project not being funded. Tim Reed stated that
if the board were to grant the school district access to reserve funds, they would also be removing
culpability from the consultant. Doug Stevens agreed with Mr. Reed, explaining that Mr. Reed’s point is
why the school district is only asking the CCAB for the amount of direct costs incurred by the district and
remaining within the scope of the BEST rules and regulations re: unknown and unforeseen
circumstances. Mr. Stevens explained that even if the $107,000 is awarded to the school district from
the grant reserves, the district will still absorb a large amount of the costs. Mr. Stevens clarified that
litigation isn’t out of the question. Quentin Rockwell clarified that a formal letter had been sent to the
consultant warning them of potential legal action.
The CCAB Chair stated that the Division staff had not recommended that grant reserves be awarded to
Genoa-Hugo, and that there is lots of capital construction need across the state. The CCAB Chair
explained that the board may entertain loaning the money to the district, but could not simply award
the funds to the school district.
Scott Newell reiterated that the oversight does not qualify as an unknown and unforeseen circumstance
as outlined by the BEST rules as the issue was known about when Genoa-Hugo’s BEST grant application
was prepared but no action was taken. Mr. Newell reiterated that the onus is solely on the consultant.
Mr. Newell explained that the abatement would have been funded in the initial grant award if it had
been included in the final budget. Mr. Newell clarified that the issue had been addressed at too late a
stage in the project to qualify for grant reserves based on unknown and unforeseen events. Quentin
Rockwell informed the CCAB that Genoa-Hugo understood the poor timing of the issue as an unforeseen
event. Mr. Newell explained that the 2011 AHERA report included in the application showed the area
was suspect, meaning that even if the ACM had been identified during the project scope, it still would
not count as unforeseen. The CCAB further discussed whether the event qualified as unforeseen or
unknown. The CCAB discussed the possible consequences of litigation.
•
XIV.
Kathy Gebhardt moved to table the discussion regarding Genoa-Hugo’s request for grant reserve
funds until the January 28th CCAB meeting;
o Karl Berg 2nd the motion
o Discussion: Ken Haptonstall requested that the Division further discuss the matter with
the consultant. Scott Newell informed the CCAB that the Division would continue its
talks with the consultant;
o Motion to table the discussion regarding Genoa-Hugo’s request for grant reserve funds
until the January 28th CCAB meeting approved unanimously.
Adjournment
• The CCAB Chair called for a motion to adjourn;
o So moved by David Tadlock
o Matt Throop 2nd the motion;
o Motion to adjourn carried unanimously;
o Meeting adjourned 3:17 p.m.
Division of Capital Construction
PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE BOARD AGENDA SHEET
MEETING DATE:
January 28, 2015
SUBJECT:
Review and discuss the Genoa-Hugo C113 school district grant reserve request
TYPE:
Action
Information X
BACKGROUND (Include any statutory authority):
At the December CCAB meeting, the Genoa-Hugo school district approached the CCAB to ask for consideration
of a grant reserve request previously denied by the Division. The Division had denied the request as it was
determined the issue was due to an oversight previously identified during the grant application and not an
unforeseen, unanticipated event. At the conclusion of the discussion the CCAB asked the school district to
contact their contractor to discuss the oversight issue and potential financial remedies.
Since the December meeting the school district has been in contact with their contractor and provided the
following information which the Division has determined qualifies under the unforeseen, anticipated
parameters of the grant reserve.
1. “Controlled Demolition”.
The “controlled demolition” was not a requirement based on Regulation 8 Part B – Asbestos (Regulation 8).
The CDPHE required a "controlled demolition" which was unusual, unnecessary, and “above and beyond the
expected means”.
2. The State’s actions at PK-12 School were outside the regulatory confines.
The CMU was inspected by a Ninyo & Moore representative and later by CDPHE personnel. The block filler
was visually determined to be non-friable. The material was sampled and analyzed in a certified laboratory
by PLM methods (required by Regulation 8). The sample results indicated trace (<1 percent) concentrations
of asbestos. Based on the definition provided in Regulation 8, the block filler is not considered asbestos
containing material (ACM) when test results indicate less than 1 percent asbestos. Under this condition,
Regulation 8 states that no additional analysis is required. Therefore, the decision made by CDPHE to
analyze the samples by point count method, and the “controlled demolition” were beyond the
requirements of Regulation 8.
3. Typical expectations for CMU Management.
Regulation 8, the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA), and the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) do not require abatement of material containing less than 1% asbestos.
The PLM results indicating the non-friable block filler contained <1% asbestos (trace) and the non-friable block
filler material (as determined by a Certified Asbestos Building Inspector and confirmed by the CDPHE) did not
require point count analysis (required by CDPHE). Therefore, under Regulation 8 the material could have been
demolished in place without additional controls or air monitoring. CDPHE unilaterally decided to go beyond
the requirements of Regulation 8.
During August 2012, Ninyo & Moore participated in a similar project at Englewood High School, Englewood,
Colorado with identified CMU block filler. In this project, the non-friable block filler material contained 8 to 10
percent asbestos. In this particular project, the CDPHE did not require special handling, specific controls or air
monitoring. CDPHE only required a visual assessment following demolition.
4. Review of Documents by CDPHE.
As a background, Ninyo & Moore conducted an asbestos inspection and prepared a report in 2013. Following
the completion of the inspection report, initial project design documents were prepared by Ninyo & Moore
pertaining to abatement activities. As is typical in this type of project, neither the inspection report nor the
project design documents were submitted to CDPHE for review. Therefore, the timing of the sampling by
Ninyo & Moore did not make a difference in the timing of CDPHE’s decision to add management
requirements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Given the new information provided by the school district and their consultant, Ninyo & Moore, the Division
will be approving a grant reserve request for the added costs associated with the controlled demolition.
STAFF RECOMMENDED MOTION (If this is an action item)
ATTACHMENTS:
Division of Capital Construction
PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE BOARD AGENDA SHEET
MEETING DATE:
January 28, 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)
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
Division of Capital Construction
PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE BOARD AGENDA SHEET
MEETING DATE:
January 28, 2015
SUBJECT:
Discuss the school district match percentage changes
TYPE:
Action
Information X
BACKGROUND (Include any statutory authority):
Due to recent changes, statute requires that additional factors be included when calculating a school district’s
minimum matching percentage. In response to these statutory changes, a CCAB subcommittee was formed
last summer to devise an updated methodology for calculating minimum matching percentages. Using this
new methodology, the Division has calculated new school district minimum matching percentages to be
utilized for the FY2015-16 grant cycle. As a result of the updated methodology, some school districts’
minimum matching percentages have decreased, some have remained stable, and others have increased.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Review and discuss the updated methodology for calculating school district minimum matching percentages.
Discuss how the waiver application assists with identifying an applicant’s financial capacity.
STAFF RECOMMENDED MOTION (If this is an action item)
ATTACHMENTS:
FY15-16 Master Summary Comparisons Page
BEST Match Matching Percentage Calculation Narrative
141216 - ADOPTED Waiver App SD and BOCES
School District Minimum Match Comparison
District Name
PUEBLO CITY 60
HARRISON 2
GREELEY 6
DENVER 1
ADAMS 14
COLORADO SPRINGS 11
FT. MORGAN RE-3
MESA VALLEY 51
MAPLETON 1
EAST OTERO R-1
LAKE R-1
WESTMINSTER 50
WIDEFIELD 3
POUDRE R-1
THOMPSON R-2J
FT. LUPTON RE-8
JEFFERSON R-1
MONTROSE RE-1J
ROCKY FORD R-2
ADAMS 12
NORTH CONEJOS RE-1J
ALAMOSA RE-11J
BRUSH RE-2(J)
DELTA 50(J)
CHERRY CREEK 5
LAMAR RE-2
MONTEZUMA-CORTEZ RE-1
ENGLEWOOD 1
SHERIDAN 2
HUERFANO RE-1
FOUNTAIN 8
ACADEMY 20
VALLEY RE-1
YUMA 1
DOUGLAS RE 1
ADAMS-ARAPAHOE 28-J
KEENESBURG RE-3(J)
LITTLETON 6
FLORENCE RE-2
GILCREST RE-1
MOFFAT COUNTY RE:NO 1
ELLICOTT 22
IGNACIO 11 JT
EAGLE RE 50
ROARING FORK RE-1
PRAIRIE RE-11
DEL NORTE C-7
HOLLY RE-3
LAS ANIMAS RE-1
CROWLEY RE-1-J
FALCON 49
WIGGINS RE-50(J)
ARCHULETA 50 JT
ST VRAIN RE 1J
FY15-16 FY14-15 Difference
56%
18%
38%
50%
15%
35%
56%
23%
33%
64%
32%
33%
48%
19%
29%
63%
36%
27%
47%
23%
24%
68%
45%
23%
50%
28%
22%
32%
10%
22%
51%
30%
22%
38%
18%
21%
66%
46%
20%
69%
49%
20%
73%
54%
19%
71%
52%
19%
76%
57%
19%
68%
49%
19%
39%
22%
17%
56%
39%
17%
45%
28%
17%
27%
10%
17%
51%
34%
16%
59%
43%
16%
72%
56%
16%
43%
26%
16%
65%
50%
15%
50%
35%
15%
28%
13%
15%
44%
30%
15%
60%
45%
14%
70%
56%
14%
45%
31%
14%
41%
14%
55%
69%
55%
14%
30%
17%
13%
73%
60%
13%
75%
62%
13%
46%
33%
13%
77%
65%
12%
69%
58%
11%
33%
22%
11%
66%
55%
11%
80%
70%
10%
67%
58%
9%
71%
62%
9%
51%
42%
9%
21%
12%
9%
41%
32%
9%
44%
36%
9%
61%
53%
8%
49%
41%
8%
70%
62%
8%
61%
53%
8%
School District Minimum Match Comparison
District Name
CANON CITY RE-1
GARFIELD RE-2
TRINIDAD 1
SANFORD 6J
BURLINGTON RE-6J
WOODLAND PARK RE-2
DURANGO 9-R
BOULDER RE 2
MANZANOLA 3J
EATON RE-2
GARFIELD 16
SPRINGFIELD RE-4
WRAY RD-2
BAYFIELD 10 JT-R
GRANADA RE-1
BUENA VISTA R-31
WINDSOR RE-4
SUMMIT RE-1
SALIDA R-32
MANITOU SPRINGS 14
CENTENNIAL R-1
SANGRE DE CRISTO RE-22J
CENTER 26 JT
BRIGHTON 27J
GILPIN RE-1
JOHNSTOWN-MILLIKEN RE-5J
MONTE VISTA C-8
JULESBURG RE-1
HOLYOKE RE-1J
MCCLAVE RE-2
MIAMI-YODER 60 JT
CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN 12
AULT-HIGHLAND RE-9
PARK RE-2
GENOA-HUGO C113
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS RE-2
LEWIS-PALMER 38
FOWLER R-4J
HI PLAINS R-23
PLATTE VALLEY RE-7
SIERRA GRANDE R-30
CLEAR CREEK RE-1
MEEKER RE1
ESTES PARK R-3
FRENCHMAN RE-3
MANCOS RE-6
PRIMERO 2
CRIPPLE CREEK-VICTOR RE-1
CALHAN RJ-1
ELIZABETH C-1
PAWNEE RE-12
WEST END RE-2
WOODLIN R-104
WILEY RE-13 JT
FY15-16 FY14-15 Difference
35%
27%
8%
72%
64%
8%
41%
33%
7%
21%
14%
7%
44%
38%
6%
64%
58%
6%
79%
73%
6%
76%
71%
5%
31%
26%
5%
76%
72%
5%
70%
65%
4%
39%
35%
4%
48%
44%
4%
69%
65%
4%
38%
34%
4%
59%
55%
4%
63%
60%
4%
81%
79%
3%
44%
41%
3%
59%
57%
2%
31%
29%
2%
22%
21%
2%
6%
5%
1%
45%
44%
1%
78%
76%
1%
63%
62%
1%
15%
14%
1%
51%
50%
1%
46%
46%
0%
43%
43%
0%
20%
20%
0%
62%
62%
0%
62%
62%
0%
59%
59%
0%
40%
-1%
40%
80%
81%
-1%
53%
54%
-1%
23%
24%
-1%
21%
23%
-1%
75%
77%
-2%
36%
38%
-2%
81%
83%
-2%
78%
80%
-3%
68%
71%
-3%
35%
38%
-3%
49%
53%
-4%
61%
64%
-4%
49%
53%
-4%
45%
50%
-4%
55%
59%
-4%
67%
72%
-5%
41%
46%
-5%
43%
48%
-5%
42%
48%
-5%
School District Minimum Match Comparison
District Name
SWINK 33
EAST GRAND 2
STRASBURG 31J
MOUNTAIN VALLEY RE 1
COTOPAXI RE-3
DOLORES COUNTY RE 2
MOFFAT 2
AGUILAR 6
PLATTE CANYON 1
SILVERTON 1
PUEBLO RURAL 70
PLAINVIEW RE-2
PEYTON 23 JT
CHERAW 31
WELDON VALLEY RE-20(J)
WALSH RE-1
CAMPO RE-6
DEBEQUE 49JT
BENNETT 29J
ARRIBA-FLAGLER C-20
WEST GRAND 1-JT
PLATEAU VALLEY 50
RANGELY RE-4
PLATEAU RE-5
EADS RE-1
KIOWA C-2
HOEHNE 3
DOLORES RE-4A
HAYDEN RE-1
NORTH PARK R-1
NORWOOD R-2J
BUFFALO RE-4
BRIGGSDALE RE-10
LIMON RE-4J
OTIS R-3
GUNNISON RE1J
AKRON R-1
CONSOLIDATED C-1
PLATTE VALLEY RE-3
DEER TRAIL 26J
CHEYENNE RE-5
BETHUNE R-5
HAXTUN RE-2J
STRATTON R-4
SOUTH ROUTT RE 3
LONE STAR 101
BIG SANDY 100J
VILAS RE-5
SOUTH CONEJOS RE-10
ARICKAREE R-2
HANOVER 28
LA VETA RE-2
IDALIA RJ-3
BYERS 32J
FY15-16 FY14-15 Difference
27%
32%
-6%
70%
75%
-6%
53%
59%
-6%
32%
38%
-6%
44%
50%
-6%
57%
63%
-7%
26%
32%
-7%
44%
51%
-8%
55%
63%
-8%
40%
48%
-8%
34%
42%
-8%
42%
50%
-8%
40%
48%
-8%
28%
37%
-8%
35%
43%
-8%
49%
57%
-8%
35%
44%
-9%
68%
77%
-9%
48%
57%
-9%
32%
42%
-9%
62%
71%
-10%
69%
79%
-10%
74%
85%
-11%
64%
75%
-11%
42%
54%
-11%
55%
66%
-11%
45%
57%
-12%
26%
38%
-12%
58%
70%
-12%
47%
59%
-12%
47%
60%
-12%
31%
43%
-12%
55%
67%
-13%
34%
47%
-13%
27%
-13%
14%
49%
62%
-13%
21%
34%
-13%
41%
55%
-13%
15%
29%
-14%
43%
58%
-14%
44%
58%
-14%
35%
49%
-15%
36%
52%
-15%
33%
49%
-16%
46%
62%
-16%
37%
53%
-16%
18%
34%
-16%
26%
42%
-17%
16%
33%
-17%
52%
68%
-17%
17%
34%
-17%
40%
57%
-17%
17%
35%
-18%
46%
64%
-18%
School District Minimum Match Comparison
District Name
KIT CARSON R-1
AGATE 300
ASPEN 1
EDISON 54 JT
RIDGWAY R-2
CREEDE 1
SARGENT RE-33J
TELLURIDE R-1
PRITCHETT RE-3
OURAY R-1
BRANSON 82
ELBERT 200
KARVAL RE-23
KIM 88
HINSDALE RE 1
LIBERTY J-4
FY15-16 FY14-15 Difference
63%
82%
-19%
43%
62%
-19%
68%
88%
-20%
16%
35%
-20%
51%
71%
-20%
45%
65%
-20%
19%
39%
-20%
67%
88%
-21%
34%
55%
-21%
51%
74%
-22%
43%
66%
-24%
29%
53%
-24%
39%
66%
-27%
25%
53%
-29%
60%
90%
-29%
41%
78%
-37%
Average 48.73% 48.96%
School District Minimum Matching Calculation for BEST Grant Applicants
The BEST Grant requires each applicant to provide a local contribution to the project in the form of a match. To determine the financial
capacity for a school district, a match percentage is calculated annually using criteria identified in 22-43.7-109(9)(a) C.R.S. The range of all
school district matching percentages is normalized so the statewide average is approximately 50%. Below is a guide explaining how school
district minimum match percentages are calculated. The following criteria are considered when determining the applicant's minimum
matching percentage:
 Per pupil assessed valuation;
 The district’s median household income (using the most current census data);
 Percentage of pupils eligible for free or reduced cost lunch;
 Current bond mill levy;
 Unreserved general fund balance;
 Current bond capacity remaining;
 Bond election failures and successes in the last 10 years.
The per pupil assessed valuation, district median household income, percentage of pupils eligible for free or reduced cost lunch, current bond
mill levy, unreserved general fund balance and current bond capacity remaining for each school district are individually sorted and assigned a
number 1-178. The number, 1-178, represents the school district’s rank relative to the statewide average for any given criteria.
Example: 1
District
A
B
C
PPAV
$100,000
$ 79,000
$217,000
Rank
PPAV
30
11
107
Household
Income
$30,000
$40,000
$25,000
Rank
Household
Income
67
172
8
FRED
79%
34%
25%
Rank
FRED
7
89
114
Bond
Mill
Levy
4.2
11
0
Rank
Bond
Mill
Levy
34
4
80
Unreserved
General Fund
Balance
$350,000
$700,000
$1,500,000
Rank
Unreserved
General Fund
Balance
35
98
120
Bond Capacity
Remaining
$1,000,000
$20,000
$12,000,000
Rank
Bond
capacity
Remaining
92
2
114
After each criterion is assigned a rank, the rank is then multiplied by a normalization factor and a weighting factor to produce a matching
percentage for that individual criterion.
The normalization factor is used to cap the overall matching requirement at 100% and generate a statewide average of 50%. To achieve this,
100 is divided into 178 to produce a normalization factor of .5618.
The Weighting factor is used to assign a specific weight to each statutory criterion.
Example: 2
District
A
B
C
Rank
PPAV
30
11
107
PPAV
Normalized
and
Weighted
at 10%
3%
1%
6%
Rank
Household
Income
67
172
8
Household
Income
Normalized
and
Weighted at
10%
4%
10%
1%
Rank
FRED
7
89
114
FRED
Normalized
and
Weighted
at 10%
1%
5%
6%
Rank
Bond
Mill
Levy
34
4
80
Bond Mill
Levy
Normalized
and
Weighted at
20%
4%
1%
9%
Rank
Unreserved
General
Fund
Balance
35
98
120
Unreserved
General
Fund
Balance
Normalized
and
Weighted at
25%
5%
14%
17%
Rank
Bond
capacity
Remaining
92
2
114
Bond
capacity
Remaining
Normalized
and
Weighted at
25%
13%
1%
16%
All the individual criteria percentages are then combined to arrive at a minimum matching requirement for those specific criteria.
Example: 3
District
A
B
C
PPAV Normalized
and Weighted at
10%
3%
1%
6%
Household Income
Normalized and
Weighted at 10%
4%
10%
1%
FRED Normalized
and Weighted at
10%
1%
5%
6%
Bond Mill Levy
Normalized and
Weighted at 20%
4%
1%
9%
Unreserved General
Fund Balance
Normalized and
Weighted at 25%
5%
14%
17%
Bond capacity
Remaining Normalized
and Weighted at 25%
13%
1%
16%
Combined
Criteria
Percentages
30%
32%
55%
The final matching percentage takes the matching percentage listed in example 3 and subtracts 1% for each bond election failure and success
during the last 10 years to arrive at the final minimum matching requirement for a school district.
Example: 4
District
A
B
C
Number of Bond Election Successes
0
1
2
Number of Bond Election Failures
0
2
0
Final Minimum Adjusted Match Percentage
30%
29%
53%
BOCES matching percentages are calculated by taking an average of the member districts matching percentages that comprise a particular
BOCES to give that BOCES a unique matching percentage.
Division of Capital Construction
BEST School District and BOCES Grant Waiver Application
The BEST grant is a matching grant and each applicant is assigned a unique minimum matching requirement, pursuant to 2243.7-109(9) C.R.S., to identify their 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 their minimum match
is not reflective of their current financial capacity, pursuant to 22-43.7-109(10) C.R.S.
Waiver applications are reviewed independent of the grant application. Upon review of the waiver application, the Capital
Construction Assistance Board will make a motion to approve or deny the applicant’s waiver request.
The Capital Construction Assistance Board shall seek to be as equitable as possible by considering the total financial capacity of
each applicant pursuant to 22-43.7-109(11) C.R.S.
Instructions
For questions 1-3
Be specific when answering the questions and explaining the issues and impacts. Your response should include dollar amounts
and specific ways in which such issues and impacts make it impossible for the applicant to make its full matching contribution.
Please submit meeting minutes, award/non-award letters, official communications, budget documents, or other relevant
documentation to support the responses provided.
For questions 4-11
Only answer the questions which the applicant feels directly contribute to a reduction in their minimum matching
requirement. For each response, please describe why the applicant feels that specific match criterion does not accurately
reflect the financial capacity of your school district.
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.
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.
Page 1
3. What efforts have been made to coordinate the project with local governmental entities, community based organizations,
other available grants, or other organizations to more efficiently or effectively leverage the applicant’s ability to contribute
financial assistance to the project?
4. Per Pupil Assessed Valuation relative to the statewide average – The higher the Per Pupil Assessed Value the higher the
match.
5. The district’s median household income relative to the statewide average – The higher the median household income the
higher the match.
6. Percentage of pupils eligible for free or reduced cost lunch relative to the statewide average – The lower the percentage for
free and reduced cost lunch the lower the match.
7. Bond Election failures and successes in the last 10 years – The more attempts the school district has had the lower the
match.
8. Bond mill levy relative to the statewide average – The higher the bond mill levy the lower the match.
9. The school district's current available bond capacity remaining.
Page 2
10. The school district's unreserved fund balance as it relates to their overall budget.
11. Please describe any other extenuating circumstances deemed appropriate for a waiver or reduction in the matching
contribution.
Page 3
Division of Capital Construction
PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE BOARD AGENDA SHEET
MEETING DATE:
January 28, 2015
SUBJECT:
Review and discuss proposed changes to the grant application evaluation tool
TYPE:
Action
Information X
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
Review proposed changes to the grant application evaluation tool. The Division plans to present the updated
grant application evaluation tool to the CCAB for adoption at the February meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDED MOTION (If this is an action item)
ATTACHMENTS:
FY2014-15 Grant Application Evaluation Tool
FY2015-16 Proposed Grant Application Evaluation Tool
FY2014-15 BEST Grant Application Evaluation Tool
Applicant:
Project Name:
Board Member:
Key: Strongly Disagree: 1 Created a
Strongly Agree: 10 Scale
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:
Reworded Slightly
*Please select the highest priority that pertains to the project.
Projects that will address safety hazards or health concerns at existing public school facilities, including concerns relating to public
Priority 1
school facility security.
Projects that will relieve overcrowding in public school facilities, including but not limited to projects that will allow students to
Priority 2
move from temporary instructional facilities into permanent facilities.
Projects that are designed to incorporate technology into the educational environment.
Priority 3
All other projects.
Priority 4
Priority Selected:
(Optional Comments & Notes)
Score 1-10 for Each
Conditions of the Entire Public School Facility
The FCI supports the scope of the proposed project.
Combined
The CFI supports the scope of the proposed project.
The facility assessment supports the scope of the project.
(Optional Comments & Notes)
Total out of 30:
Added new question
0
Score 1-10 for Each
Financial Capacity
The applicant is providing the minimum required match contribution or meets the minimum waiver requirements.
Reworded
The applicant has less than three financial warning indicators. Removed
The applicant is contributing to a capital reserve type fund.
0
Total out of 30:
Added new question
(Optional Comments & Notes)
Reworded Slightly
Score 1-10 for Each
Project Proposal
The application clearly states the deficiencies associated with the facility.
The solution resolves all deficiencies noted within the application.
The scope of work proposed appears to be reasonable and well planned.
The deficiencies are urgent in nature.
Total out of 40:
0
(Optional Comments & Notes)
Score 1-10 for Each
Other Application Considerations
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, transparent selection process for contractors and consultants.
Total out of 40:
0
(Optional Comments & Notes)
Created Division
Comment Sections
Grand Total of All Scores:
Presentation & Discussion - no score, information only
0
(Optional Comments & Notes)
Shortlist
Recommended
CDE - Division of Capital Construction Assistance
Not recommended
Moved up and created a Not
Recommended comments section
Adopted 12/12/2013
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 matching funds.
The applicant is contributing a suitable amount to a capital reserve type fund.
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