Minutes
Scottsdale Unified School District
Bond Oversight Committee Meeting
March 6, 2001
Education Center
4:30 P.M.
In attendance were Mr. Gary Moriarty, Wendy Lyons, Ms. Pam Krewson, Ms. Diana Smith, Mr. Mr. Robert Pierce, Mr. George Bosworth, Mr. Tim Bray, Mr. Bill Johnson, and Mr. Kent Bosworth.
Bill opened the meeting thanking the Committee for getting together so quickly to discuss the possible 1997 Bond offset projects.
Kent Bosworth spoke about the 5 different concepts that were presented for the 1997 Bond Program remodel / renovation budget of$60M. These ranged from a replacement school at Cochise and the balance of the funds spread throughout the schools to a new Cochise, 4 additional replacement schools and the remaining funds spread to the other schools. A preliminary replacement ranking for schools was established by 3D/I, which listed the following schools in order of replacement need:
Elementary
Middle
The first item discussed was the budget for furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E). Prior to the final bond plan being accepted on September 7,1999 the budget for FF&E was $6M. At that same time, the budget for renovations to existing campuses was $59.5M. During the process of refining the scope of work at the various schools, and the projects to be completed, the amount budgeted for construction at the existing campuses increased to $63.2M and the budget for FF&E was reduced to approximately $4.5M. Of the $4.5M, $2M appears to be allocated to the current budget of$12.2M for technology. Will the $2M, $1 M from equipment and $1M from furniture now included in the technology budget of$12.2M be used for FF&E? No, the technology budget does not include furniture, and does not include anything that is not specifically technology equipment. What was the process for reallocating the $2M from equipment and furniture into technology? Additional research is needed to find out what the history of the technology budget is, and also what the history of the equipment and the furniture budget is. District staff will have a complete report of what the budgets were, what the budgets are now, explain any differences if there are any, and also to indicate what has been expended to date, what the expenses were used for, what is remaining in the budget, and what the plan is for the remaining budget for FF&E, and also for technology. The report will be available and ready by the next meeting on March 28,2001. Can the information be provided to the members of the committee in advance of the Meeting? District staff will do it's best to accomplish that.
The second item discussed at the meeting was the status of the deficiency corrections funding and their impact on the bond founds. 3DI has identified $13.5M dollars worth of items that should be funded from the deficiency corrections fund. These items have been submitted to the School Facilities Board (SFB) consultant Jacobs/Chanen (J/C) for review, and the commitment in terms of final agreement on the dollar amounts, that will be provided to the district to offset Bond funds. At recent meeting of the SFB and its consultants J/C had indicated that it would provide a commitment with in the next 30 days on the projects that have been submitted to date.
The amount of funding from the SFB for deficiencies corrections is expected to continue to grow. The SFB has agreed to fund the cost of architectural fees for the projects. The total amount of SFB deficiency corrections funding is estimated at $21M. Somewhere between $11M and $13M of this total offsets projects that were going to be completed with bond funds. The balance is for additional projects above and beyond what was going to be accomplished by the bond. A big portion of the work above and beyond what the bond was going to accomplish is re-roofing projects through out the district. Additional projects are still being identified. For example; the SFB is looking at replacing water piping at Cocopah, it is replacing the fire alarm system at Cherokee, and it is looking into several other projects that are above and beyond the $21 M included in the original projects authorized by the SFB. Unlike the vast majority of districts in the State, the letter provided by the SFB to Scottsdale, outlining the projects that would be approved, indicated that additional projects would be funded as they were identified, and so both 3DI and the district are working to identify additional projects. We expect that the total funding for deficiency corrections will grow not only to offset the bond funds but also to fund additional projects beyond what the bond fund originally anticipated.
The committee asked about the funding for technology, the $5M that the SFB has identified as its budget for providing technology to the district, Mr. Scott Kovacs indicated that, something less than the entire $5M reflects work that was included in the budget for the bond. He indicated that the line item in the bond budget for the same scope of work anticipated by the SFB is about $4M dollars. To what extent will the bond funds offset by the SFB technology funding become available for use with other projects? To the extent that the funding of technology, by the SFB, takes the place of projects that were going to be funded by the bond, these dollars can be reallocated in similar fashion as the bond funds that are being freed up by the other deficiency corrections funding from the State. Can bond funds freed up by the State's funding of technology only be used for other technology projects? No, they can be used for any project that is within the overall scope of work anticipated by the bond.
The next item addressed by the committee in the meeting was the status of the current bond projects and the scope of work included in those projects, and the issue of any projects included in the Bond Bible that may not have been funded. Kent Bosworth presented the 1997 Bond Plan comparison booklet, which shows the plan approved by the Governing Board on September 7,1999 compared with what has been or is being constructed. Any deviations to the approved projects were noted. The report indicates whether each project is complete, currently under contract, or has not be contracted for, and if not, why not. Mr. Bosworth reviewed the report, and reviewed some of the projects that had not been contracted. For example he indicated that at Hopi the original Bond Bible included a new garbage disposal in the snack bar but it was found that no cooking is done in the snack bar, and the garbage disposal is unnecessary. They also found that the sewer issues that had been raised were a result of the garbage disposal question, so that once it was determined that the garbage disposal was unnecessary the need to remedy sewer issues was also resolved.
In some cases the projects or the specific items or were not completed because once the plan had been put together a visit with the site team indicated that the site team had a different priority or preferred that the work not be done because of preferential reasons by the local site team. Are there other projects not included in the Bond Bible due to funding limitations? There were projects that had been talked about when people put together then- wish list, but it was understood that the projects would have to fit within the scope of the funding that was available, and that the final list approved in the Bond Bible is the list that they worked to. Are there any other high priority projects that still need to be addressed? We would hate to have someone come back and say that there is a dire need, a Health and Safety type of issue that was not addressed. There is the potential for an item to come forward is certainly always present however the highest priority when putting together the projects for the 97 Bond were the Health & Safety items. In addition, the highest priority for deficiency corrections projects funded by the state were health & safety items, so both the District and 3DI and it's team went through the campuses those, were the items that were addressed first. Likewise when the SFB assessors came through health & safety items were also identified first. As a result the likelihood of additional health and safety items coming out at this time that have not been already caught and addressed is relatively low.
Are there other projects similar to the performing arts building at Chaparral High that had been identified? Are any members of the committee aware of any projects that were high priority that had been cut or eliminated because of lack of funding? No additional projects were identified.
The committee asked Mr. Johnson to review the projects that he had proposed at the . previous joint meeting of the BOC and the Governing Board.
Supai Middle School: A total of $8.5 M additional funding would be required to rebuild Supai on its existing site. That project will included replacement square footage for all of the old building constructed back in the 1950's. The more recent buildings constructed about 12 years ago including the gymnasium and what is often referred to, as the music building would remain. These latter buildings would be renovated and remodeled as necessary to ensure they meet current district standards, but the rest of the campus would be replaced. One option would be to build the new school and when it's complete move the students and staff into the new building, but leave the existing buildings in place for a year or two in order to use them as a holding school as other campuses are being rebuilt that wouldn't be able to accommodate new construction at the same time as the old schools are still in session.
Why would Supai be a higher priority Pima, which had been identified earlier on as one of the higher priorities for replacement? What is the replacement cost of Pima? Kent Bosworth responded that it was listed as $7,403,500 in the concepts presented. Both schools were built the same year, and physically they are in approximately the same condition but the difference is that Supai was built as an elementary school but is being used as a middle school, and as a result does not meet some of the educational program requirements for a middle school. There was also discussion from the committee about future growth at Supai, and the committee expressed a desire that the school be planned to accommodate additional future growth. There was a discussion of enrollments. The Western Ed report indicates that enrollment will level off at about 655 students. Once the new school is complete, students that are leaving the Coronado complex might stay, and enrollments might actually go up. One good thing about that location, on the existing Supai site is, that there would be room to accommodate additional students if the enrollments were to increase. What is the status of the original funding allocated to Supai? There are $1.3M remaining in renovation funding that will be used toward the replacement of the school. What is the status of the balance of the $2.2M that was allocated to Supai? Those funds were used to install a new central plant at Supai over the summer of 2000. This plant included 2 new chillers, a new boiler, new cooling towers and electrical upgrades. This equipment could be relocated as part of the new project.
Will funding from the State for technology that duplicates or takes the place of technology budgeted for the bond be used for the technology portion of the Supai project? The technology budget for Supai is $1.5M. Funding provided by the SFB for technology in the amount of$5M appears to free up $4M in bond funds. The funding of technology for Supai of $1.5M should be able to be funded from the amount provided by the State for technology.
Tavan Classroom Building Replacement: The proposal is to replace the remaining classroom buildings that were built in 1956. The project will consist of 4 classroom wings that in the current project would receive a minor amount of remodeling. The project is currently under contract and the scope of work included in the remodeling will be backed out of the contract. The current plan to remodel the old cafeteria into the new administrative area will proceed. A new and separate project apart from the work being done by the current contractor would be designed and put out for bid for construction of the new classroom buildings to replace the old buildings.
Chaparral Performing Arts Building: The project is currently under contract and will go forward as planned and the addition to the building would be constructed as a separate project. An architect would still need to design the addition and it would be an add on to the existing building rather than a change or remodel to the existing building. The estimated budget is $1M dollars.
High School Add Alternates: The cost for the add alternates at the high schools is $ 1,7M. The contractor has agreed to hold open his price on the add alternates for 60 days, but that was a couple of days ago so the decision would have to be made within the next 45 days, and certainly sooner if possible because the contractor will be placing the order for materials and will need to know as soon as possible in order to provide the right materials and equipment to build the projects with the add alternates included.
The committee asked about the timelines and deadlines for expenditures or putting the bond funds under contract and for expenditure of the bond fund. The limitations on the expenditure of the bond fund are set by statute. The statutes do not provide for a waiver of the time requirements. The bond funds have to be placed under contract by the end of this calendar year and the funds must be expended by the end of the following calendar year or by December 31,2002. In order to accomplish this the work needs to proceed quickly on all of these projects.
The next item in the meeting was Public Comment.
Mr. Moriarty invited the public to come forward and to address the BOC. A total of 5 comment cards were submitted. The first person to address the committee was Deanna Sanft spoke in support of the proposal to rebuild Supai MS. Deanna Sanft is a member of the community
The second person was Joan Agostinelli a member of the community. Joan spoke in support of the proposal to replace Supai Middle School.
Margaret Sema is a principal at Tavan spoke in support of the proposal to replace the old classroom buildings at Tavan. George Bosworth commented on the additional allocation of funds to Tavan. His records showed that under the last 4 Bond Programs, over $8M in funding had been provided to Tavan.
Jim Bailey was the 4th person to address the committee. He is a teacher at Tavan and spoke in favor of the proposal to replace the old classroom buildings at Tavan.
The fifth person to address the BOC was Tom Ziegler, principal of Pueblo Elementary School, and he asked the committee to provide funding for playground equipment at Pueblo school that is not part of the construction contract. Mr. Ziegler indicated that he had been told that he had a budget of about 45,000 dollars to use towards playground equipment and his students, and community and parents had picked out playground equipment with a cost of about $70,000 and that the community was prepared to make up the difference, but that the playground equipment was important to his school. George Bosworth spoke about the prior funding from the 1993 Bond Program that showed that playground equipment had been provided for Pueblo. Ziegler stated that if it was, he wasn't aware of it.
After comment from the public the BOC asked about the status of playground equipment, Mr. Johnson confirmed that playground equipment is not included in the construction contract. Mr. Bosworth. indicated that the issue of playground equipment had been addressed early on in the bond funds and it had been decided by the district not to include playground equipment in the construction contracts and that the district would handle playground equipment separately. He is uncertain if playground equipment was budgeted and to what extent it was budgeted but he knew from discussions that it had been an issue of equity or parity between the schools in the district in terms of having one school receive a significant amount of funding for playground equipment when other schools did not. The question was asked by Diana Smith if there weren't requirements set in statue federal statutes for playground equipment. Pam Krewson responded that playground equipment has regulations once you have equipment, but does not have regulations indicating that you must have equipment. Mr. Johnson further explained that the regulations are regarding the safety of playground equipment and accessibility of playground equipment once you have it.
After hearing public comment from citizens and school employees, the recommendations put forward by district staff, for the allocation of additional bond funds were summarized. The four proposed projects included the replacement of Supai Middle School for an additional $8.5 million ($9.8 million total including $8.3 million for design and construction and $1.5 million for technology), the replacement of the older Tavan Classroom buildings for an additional $2 million, the award of bid add-altemates for the high school projects in the amount of $1,728,000, and the expansion of the performing arts building at Chaparral High School. Clarification was requested for the availability of freed up bond funds from the state funding of technology. The SFB has estimated $5.2 million in state funding for technology in SUSD. It has not yet been established how much of this amount overlaps with work included in the bond, but based on the district's technology budget, the amount will be in the range of $4 million. The freed up amount will be available for reallocation. Committee members felt that this source of funds could provide the $ 1.5 million in additional technology for the replacement of Supai Middle School. A question was raised by the committee regarding furniture and equipment for the Supai replacement project. An additional allocation in the range of $400,000 for furniture and equipment would be appropriate. Committee members felt that the furniture and equipment budget already included in the bond should be used for this purpose. A motion was made and seconded to recommend the Governing Board approve the allocation of bond funds for these projects as funds become available and in the order of priority as listed. Dianna Smith offered an amendment to the motion allocating an additional $50,000 to Pueblo Elementary School for playground equipment and placing this proposed project as the fourth priority, ahead of the performing arts building addition at Chaparral High School. The motion as amended was accepted, seconded and passed unanimously. This recommendation will be presented to the Governing Board as an action item at the March 13,2001 meeting.
Topics to be addressed at the next meeting will include the status of funding from the SFB in relation to the new projects, and a comprehensive review of the budgets for technology, furniture, and equipment. The BOC asked that information be made available as far in advance of the meeting as possible and that information be sent out as it becomes available rather than waiting for a single packet to be assembled. The committee established March 28,2001 at 4:30 as the next meeting date.