1
1
2
3
4
5
6 BEFORE THE WYOMING STATE LEGISLATURE
7 JOINT APPROPRIATIONS INTERIM COMMITTEE
8
9 VOLUME I OF II
10
11
12 --------------------------------------------------------
13
14 JOINT APPROPRIATIONS INTERIM COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS
15
10:55 a.m., Wednesday
16 July 9, 2002
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: We'll call this
3 to order. I believe all the legislators are here that
4 are scheduled to arrive.
5 Since we're already a little bit late, I
6 guess, maybe we can go ahead and presume that everybody
7 is here that's going to come from the community or
8 surrounding area.
9 I would like to thank the folks from Park
10 County School District Number 1 for their tour and the
11 information that was given to us so far this morning.
12 The next thing on the agenda -- oh. I need to
13 make an announcement. Lunch will be available here and
14 you will pay for it. But, you know, they have a
15 cafeteria here and it is open to everyone if you don't
16 have previous plans or other plans. But while you're in
17 the Bighorn Basin, now that we've got you, stay a while,
18 if you can.
19 An introduction was done and everybody has
20 their name tags in front of them as far as legislators,
21 but the first thing that we need to do is have a report
22 from MGT and their work of the building inadequacies,
23 both here and in the Sheridan School District Number 2.
24 So, Mr. Cromwell, introduce those with you and
25 yourself, and we'll charge into your presentation.
3
1 MR. CROMWELL: Thank you, Chairman
2 Baker.
3 I'm Dodds Cromwell, partner with MGT of
4 America. On my left is Dave Teater, also a partner with
5 MGT of America and was kind of overseeing the education
6 suitability and enrollment objections for our study.
7 And on my right is Gordon Longwell, GGW Longwell
8 Architects, looking at the architectural aspects. Our
9 team also consisted of JUB Engineers who aren't here
10 today.
11 Just to start off to review the process that
12 we went through for the committee, we met with the
13 districts and each district separately and did a pretty
14 comprehensive tour of their facilities, and then we sat
15 down with them and went through their proposed remedies
16 and analyzed those in some detail. In one case, we
17 actually even met with some board members that were
18 wanting to talk and present their views.
19 We then took all that data and assembled our
20 team in a work session where we reviewed the data and
21 developed alternative remedies and developed some costs
22 for those remedies. Then we came up with a preliminary
23 recommendation which we then shared with the district
24 and gave them a couple of weeks to come back and supply
25 additional data or new data or whatever they wanted to
4
1 keep working on the issues.
2 We shared our initial findings, our
3 preliminary regions with the Select Committee on School
4 Facilities a couple weeks ago and got some more input
5 from the legislators there, consequently developed a
6 couple more looks at things and have now formulated our
7 final recommendations which we are presenting today.
8 That's been the process that we have gone
9 through. I would like to say that everybody involved
10 has been very forthcoming and energetic and putting a
11 lot of effort and work into this, and I think it's been
12 a pretty worthwhile process.
13 I'll start with Park 1, I guess. That's the
14 way it's on the agenda. And just -- I'm on page 3-1 of
15 the report that you have in front of you. I believe you
16 have a copy of the report.
17 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Why don't --
18 SENATOR CATHCART: What does it look
19 like?
20 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: We're talking
21 about -- this is the report?
22 MR. CROMWELL: Yes.
23 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Since it's our
24 agenda, let's go through it the way you have it lined
25 out here, Sheridan first.
5
1 MR. CROMWELL: Sheridan first? Okay.
2 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Yeah. Does that
3 mess you up at all?
4 MR. CROMWELL: No, not at all.
5 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: I know, since the
6 Sheridan folks have to travel back home, I think it
7 would be easier for them. Let's just do it the way you
8 have got it rather -- and I believe this is arbitrary.
9 It's just arbitrary the way --
10 MR. CROMWELL: We had talked about that.
11 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: So let's just do
12 it. Start at the beginning of your presentation and go
13 through it instead of the confusion, and for the
14 Sheridan folks that do have to travel home, I would like
15 to do that first, if I could.
16 There is Representative Burns. He is going to
17 arrive.
18 SENATOR CATHCART: Mr. Chairman, what
19 are you looking at?
20 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: I'm looking at
21 this review of facility inadequacies.
22 SENATOR CATHCART: Did that come in our
23 packet?
24 MR. NELSON: What you have is with the
25 July 2nd memo attached to it.
6
1 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: It came in your
2 packet. Okay. Yours is not bound the same way as mine
3 is. That's the problem.
4 Does everybody have that now?
5 The letter of introduction, Dave, is -- it was
6 the first thing in the packet.
7 MR. NELSON: Exactly.
8 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: The first thing
9 in the packet.
10 MR. NELSON: We have extras here. If
11 you can't find them, let me know.
12 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Where is
13 representative Reese, too? We are still missing --
14 SENATOR GRANT: We are?
15 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Yes.
16 Representative Reese is not here yet either.
17 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: I hate people who
18 are late.
19 SENATOR GRANT: When you get in the
20 Senate, Representative Burns, you're going to have to be
21 more prompt.
22 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Yes, sir.
23 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Well, we're going
24 to have to continue.
25 REPRESENTATIVE TIPTON: There he comes.
7
1 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Let's charge into
2 it. We have got to --
3 MR. CROMWELL: Thank you, Chairman
4 Baker.
5 I am going to back up just a second. On page
6 1-1 of the report, we -- as I said earlier, we developed
7 various remedies for the inadequacies that we saw and we
8 judged the remedies based on the criteria that are
9 listed at the bottom of the page 1-1, and those include
10 that the remedy will provide sufficient capacity based
11 on state standards; it will substantially meet state
12 standards and guidelines to educational facilities; it
13 will only need routine maintenance; it will meet current
14 seismic code requirements; it will be educationally
15 suitable to deliver the educational basket of goods; it
16 will have adequate infrastructure for educational
17 technology; it will be ADA accessible, and it will be
18 the most cost-effective solution that meets the above
19 criteria. So those are the criteria that we analyzed
20 the various remedies by.
21 I'll go on now to Central Middle School.
22 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Before we do
23 that, let's talk for a minute, members of the committee,
24 about, it will meet current seismic code requirements.
25 Now, that is not a requirement of the legislation, is
8
1 it? It is a requirement of the legislation? Okay. I
2 was unaware of that. The response apparently is yes
3 from Mr. Nelson.
4 MR. NELSON: Right, yes.
5 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Okay. I wanted
6 to clarify that. That is in the -- okay.
7 MR. CROMWELL: Taking a look at Central
8 Middle School, the first project to talk about. And I'm
9 not going to go through the report page by page, but on
10 page 2-1, you'll see a listing of the various buildings
11 that are located at Central Middle School and the
12 Sheridan Junior High School building. And I'll talk
13 more about that in a minute. But we did enrollment
14 projections for the district.
15 On page 2-2, you'll see a graph which shows,
16 projects those enrollment projections. And on page 2-3,
17 you'll see the actual numbers of what we projected.
18 We did these projections using a cohort
19 survival methodology, which is a widely used
20 standardized process of looking at enrollment
21 projections. Then we also talked with the district and
22 asked them if there were any other factors that might
23 affect enrollments such as a big plant shutting down or
24 a big plant opening up or something that might affect
25 growth in the district. And there was generally nothing
9
1 that was real predictable on the horizon.
2 So, we used the cohort survival method and
3 felt that the enrollment projections for the district
4 would stay fairly stable for the next ten years. So we
5 used that as a basis to size any remedies.
6 We also looked at the educational suitability
7 of the existing facility and what it would take to
8 remedy that. And we felt that it would be difficult in
9 the case of Central Middle School to make that building
10 educationally suitable to deliver the basket of goods
11 because of the building configuration and because of the
12 way that middle schools are now configured as far as
13 grouping of the students in the different groups.
14 I am going to go on to page 2-6 and review the
15 alternate remedies.
16 The district has proposed that they will
17 demolish Central Middle School and sell the property.
18 Central Middle School houses grades 6 and 7. They would
19 also demolish the existing junior high school which
20 houses grades 8 and 9.
21 It scored about a 50, so it's right on the
22 cusp of needing some type of attention. It needs
23 attention. It's on the cusp as being in the same
24 category as the middle school.
25 They would then build a new middle school at
10
1 the site of the existing junior high which would house
2 grades 6, 7 and 8, and then they would build a new
3 classroom wing at the high school to house grade 9. So
4 we're taking two schools and reconfiguring them in to
5 make one school and take one of those grades, grade 9,
6 and put it at the high school.
7 This is a more typical grade configuration
8 that you will see around the state, so that all your
9 high school students are in 9 through 12 are in the same
10 facility.
11 The existing vocational building at the junior
12 high school would be renovated to house the district
13 administration, which is on the third floor of the
14 existing junior high, kind of doing -- moving different
15 functions around here. And the -- because the
16 vocational agricultural facility that the high school
17 uses is at the junior high school, their proposal was to
18 add a new facility at the high school since they would
19 lose the existing one. And then they also added in
20 because they will be freeing up some space in the Early
21 Building, they will relocate the alternative schools to
22 the Early Building, thereby eliminating the need to
23 lease space which they now use to house their
24 alternative schools.
25 So the proposal would eliminate about 190,000
11
1 gross square feet and then would create about 160,000
2 new space. So there would be a reduction of necessary
3 space of about 30,000 square feet.
4 It would reconfigure the schools in a more
5 typical grade configuration. It would not be disruptive
6 to students, and we would end up with about a 164 gross
7 square feet per students for 834 students. They size
8 their remedy using the state guideline that you take
9 last year's enrollment and add 10 percent.
10 So then we developed alternative remedy number
11 1, which is essentially --
12 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Mr. Cochair.
13 SENATOR LARSON: Point of
14 clarification: They are looking at providing 164 gross
15 square feet and our standard is 120 to 150, it says.
16 That's still -- but you said they used what to --
17 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
18 The 834 students that they sized the facility
19 for is based on their last year's enrollment plus 10
20 percent, and then they came up with a program they built
21 up space by space which resulted in about 160,000 gross
22 square feet total.
23 They didn't use a formula to come up with
24 that. They built --
25 SENATOR GRANT: But the net result is
12
1 164 versus our statistics, 120 to 150.
2 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
3 Yes.
4 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Let's clarify
5 this. This is their proposal, not your recommendation.
6 MR. CROMWELL: Correct.
7 SENATOR GRANT: Yeah, but that's what it
8 was.
9 MR. CROMWELL: So then we took
10 alternative 1 to develop another remedy. Alternative 1
11 is essentially the same configuration of buildings,
12 demolishing buildings and renovating buildings and
13 moving things around. But we developed it so that the
14 remedy would provide a maximum of 150 gross square feet
15 per student for 775 students, and we would size the core
16 facilities for 800 so that it could accommodate growth
17 in the future if necessary. And then the remedy would
18 also provide about 14,000 square feet for a ninth grade
19 classroom, which is little bit more than the district's
20 proposal.
21 And then alternate number 2 would be to
22 renovate the existing junior high and renovate the
23 existing middle school and leave them as they are in the
24 same locations and at the same grade configurations.
25 At the bottom of page 2-7, you'll see some
13
1 comparison of costs. And I'll point you back to the
2 back of the -- well, actually, you have it in a big blue
3 spreadsheet, I believe. The back of the report should
4 have it or that big, yeah, blue spreadsheet has how the
5 costs were developed for each remedy.
6 Actually, in the spreadsheet here, we have
7 costed out the district proposal at about 24.4 million
8 and looked at the 30-year impact to the major
9 maintenance payments. And as you are aware, the many
10 maintenance payments are largely based on the amount of
11 space that's in a district, somewhat tempered by the
12 utilization of that space or the number of students as
13 well.
14 So, over 30 years, there would be an increase
15 of 3.7 million dollars for major maintenance payments
16 for the district proposal.
17 Alternative 1, if we do the same configuration
18 and size it at the maximum of the state guideline, will
19 get us a remedy for about 21.7 million and 1.7 million
20 dollar major maintenance payments.
21 We were asked at the select committee to take
22 a look at what would -- what the numbers would look like
23 if we went midrange of the guidelines. And so we
24 developed those numbers as well, 22.2 million and 1.4
25 million increase on major maintenance payments.
14
1 I might explain to the members of the
2 committee that the -- while we are reducing the amount
3 of gross square feet in the district, the reason that
4 the major maintenance payments are increased is because
5 the major maintenance payments are based on a percentage
6 of the value of buildings, and the formula now says all
7 buildings before -- built before 1996 are valued at a
8 set amount per square foot, which is $65, I believe,
9 which is based on -- RS means cost estimating.
10 Buildings built after that time are valued on
11 their actual cost or what the appropriate cost is
12 established by the department of ed. And so that in
13 effect will increase the value -- the value of the
14 building is increased, so the percentage gets increased,
15 so the payments increase.
16 The logic behind that is that the formula is
17 based on the fact -- that the theory that you should be
18 investing around 2 percent of a building's value every
19 year in major maintenance to keep a building
20 maintained.
21 So, obviously, you wouldn't -- in the first
22 year of a building, you probably wouldn't need to spend
23 that much, but as a building goes through its cycle of
24 different maintenance issues, needing a new roof or
25 replacing an HVAC system, you're going to have ups and
15
1 downs.
2 So the major maintenance payments kind of
3 flatten that out and disburse that money on an annual
4 basis. So the more expensive a building is, the more
5 major maintenance it will probably take.
6 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: But --
7 MR. CROMWELL: Sorry if I confused
8 everybody.
9 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: No. At least you
10 haven't confused me. But let's consider the
11 disincentives that that builds into the system.
12 That builds a disincentive into the system for
13 maintaining your older buildings, because, if you get a
14 new building, you get even more maintenance funds. Is
15 this advisable in the long run, to continue to pay
16 according to the value of the building? In other words,
17 you pay more for a new building for maintenance than you
18 do for an old building for maintenance, which is
19 counterintuitive.
20 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman, it's
21 counterintuitive. It's based on fairly reasonable logic
22 and it's also based on a need to be able to put these
23 kinds of issues in a formula that can be administered in
24 a reasonable manner.
25 So, I won't say that the process is perfect,
16
1 but I think when you're applying a process like this to
2 a great number of buildings like we're doing in the
3 state, I think it makes good sense and flows from good
4 theory.
5 Originally, the -- the original formula did
6 not change the value, did not update the value that was
7 in the buildings. And I believe that came out of the
8 legislature.
9 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Senator
10 Cathcart.
11 SENATOR CATHCART: Well, Mr. Chairman,
12 as I -- as I look at page 2-7 at the bottom and you look
13 at alternative 1B versus 1A versus the district
14 proposal, I see 1.4 million. And that's an annual
15 payment on major maintenance?
16 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
17 No. That's the increase in major maintenance
18 dollars that would be realized over 30 years over the
19 current -- what they are currently receiving. That's
20 the net difference.
21 So, if they were -- let me just throw out some
22 numbers. If they're currently receiving $500,000 in
23 major maintenance payments, they would -- and they end
24 up receiving $600,000 because of the new buildings, then
25 that would be a 30-year increase of 3,300,000 -- 300,000
17
1 dollars. So that's the net increase.
2 My example probably did more damage than it
3 did good. Sorry.
4 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Senator
5 Anderson.
6 SENATOR ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr.
7 Chairman.
8 Following along with Cochair Baker's question
9 with regard to the formula, am I correct when I look at
10 this, there is two standards, one for -- an older
11 building would be paid -- reimbursed at one standard.
12 If a building were new, totally replaced, it would be
13 reimbursed at a different standard. If it were
14 renovated, it appears here it maintains the original
15 standard of reimbursement that the original age of the
16 building carried? In other words, a renovated building
17 would be reimbursed at the rate of its original age. Is
18 that correct?
19 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
20 Senator Anderson, I don't think the rules
21 speak to that. So that's the way we calculated it. In
22 fact, it may be logical that a totally renovated
23 building should have its value increased. So if that
24 was the case, then alternative 2 would see a similar
25 increase in major maintenance payments.
18
1 SENATOR ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr.
2 Chair.
3 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative
4 Burns.
5 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: A few questions,
6 Mr. Chairman.
7 Under -- I know you don't have blueprints or
8 anything. But how many general classrooms are
9 anticipated in this?
10 MR. CROMWELL: Chairman Baker.
11 Senator Burns, I'm glad you asked that
12 question because it's a point I wanted to emphasize.
13 These are -- I want to say that these costs are budgeted
14 conceptual costs, and you can go into detail how they
15 were developed and this bigger spreadsheet kind of does
16 that. But the basic building size is based on taking
17 the number of students and multiplying that times amount
18 of gross square feet per student and then multiplying
19 that times a cost per square foot to build a building.
20 So there is no specific design. So, again, these are
21 budget planning numbers. They are not based on any
22 design.
23 Having said that, there has been a lot of
24 question about the standards and whether they are
25 appropriate. If you'll look at Appendix B, we did
19
1 develop what we call a program model and which is --
2 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: What page would
3 that be?
4 MR. CROMWELL: B-1. It's titled "Model
5 for 775 Student Middle School."
6 Basically, what we did was we listed the
7 spaces that would be necessary in a middle school to
8 deliver the educational basket of goods, and general
9 classrooms, you will see there are 16 general
10 classrooms, six science rooms, three special ed. and so
11 on and so on, art rooms, music rooms, P.E. spaces and
12 whatnot.
13 This is -- I want to emphasize again, this is
14 not a specific design that we think will solve
15 everybody's educational problem, but this is one model
16 which gets us to a bottom line of -- and you'll see it
17 on the lower right corner of 132.4 square feet per
18 student, which tells us the guidelines are reasonable
19 and can be used to deliver the basket of goods.
20 Now, a district, may -- when they design their
21 middle school or their high school, they may choose to
22 not configure their spaces like this or they may chose
23 to configure -- you know, they may end up with a little
24 bit more space than what we have shown here or a little
25 less space based on their individual program. But what
20
1 we have tried to do here is develop an educational model
2 based on the department of ed. saying, okay, what's
3 needed to deliver the educational goods.
4 What's not included in here is what functions
5 high schools and middle schools often serve to the
6 community. So you don't have -- for instance, we're not
7 putting in a gym the size that a lot of communities have
8 now in their schools that is used for a lot of other
9 community events.
10 There are things in here like natatoriums.
11 And at the middle school level, there aren't
12 auditoriums. That was the department of ed. policy that
13 was made in the last round of programs.
14 So, Senator Burns, to answer your question,
15 again, I guess this is an example of one program, space
16 program, that would fit within the guidelines.
17 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Mr. Chairman?
18 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative
19 Burns.
20 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: That brings me to
21 my question. You have got 16 general classrooms, you
22 have six science classrooms and two assigned prep rooms,
23 which I guess could be considered classrooms, I guess,
24 for the sake of argument, anyway.
25 Just the general classrooms alone, I divided
21
1 that by 775 and that worked out to 48 students per --
2 48.5 students per classroom. And even if you throw in
3 the science rooms, assuming everybody is there that day,
4 that 24 rooms. That's still 32 students per room, where
5 my understanding of the educational standards is 19
6 students per classroom. So you have got me real
7 confused here.
8 MR. CROMWELL: Chairman Baker.
9 Representative Burns. Excuse me. If you'll
10 look at the top of that page, you'll see that we have
11 got 44 teaching stations times 20.7 students times an
12 85-percent utilization rate gets the 774 students. And
13 so we're looking at teaching stations and we're looking
14 at general classrooms, the science classrooms, the
15 special ed. rooms, the band room, the choir room, the
16 three art rooms. Then we have got seven vocational
17 rooms and we have five P.E. teaching stations.
18 So, you use -- you take all of those teaching
19 stations and assume that there will be kids in them all
20 the time, at least to an 85-percent utilization rate.
21 SENATOR GRANT: Forty-four instead of --
22 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Sometimes his
23 questions make me groan like a building. That's an
24 interesting sound, whatever that is, they're creating
25 somewhere.
22
1 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Reminds me of
2 lunch.
3 Mr. Chairman.
4 So, if I'm correct, you're going on the
5 assumption that 15 percent of the students are going to
6 be absent on any given day? Is that my -- or 85-percent
7 utilization of the building, so the building has an
8 overcapacity, basically.
9 MR. CROMWELL: Chairman Baker.
10 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: I'm not looking
11 at the negative or positive here.
12 MR. CROMWELL: Representative Burns, the
13 85 percent utilization assumes that some periods,
14 classrooms aren't going to be used.
15 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: So it's an
16 overcapacity.
17 MR. CROMWELL: And all classes will not
18 be exactly 20.7 students. Some classes will be 15 and
19 some will be 25. And, you know, I don't know that I
20 would characterize it as an overcapacity. I don't think
21 you can get 100-percent utilization in a building. It's
22 just not logistically possible. We don't see it. 85
23 percent is, we think, very -- what's the word I'm
24 looking for? -- aggressive and attainable.
25 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Mr. Chairman?
23
1 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative
2 Burns.
3 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: If you'll give me
4 some slack for being parochial here, being from
5 Sheridan.
6 Last month before the select committee, you --
7 if I recall your proposal was alternative 1. Now it's
8 1B. So basically you have eliminated about 11.6
9 thousand square feet from your recommendation or from
10 the alternative. I don't know if it's your actual
11 recommendation or not. I guess it is.
12 So my question is, what's happened between
13 last month and now that Sheridan should be eleven and a
14 half thousand square feet less?
15 MR. CROMWELL: Chairman Baker.
16 Representative Burns. I think what we're
17 recommending is that the legislature fund planning for
18 an alternative that is like 1B, and what we have done is
19 developed cost factors so that we can look ahead and see
20 what's coming down the pike costwise, and we have also
21 developed a model that shows that 1B is very feasible.
22 But we are not recommending that the district be limited
23 or restricted to designing exactly that many square feet
24 per student or that the -- their design look exactly
25 like the model we have developed. But we have done
24
1 those -- we have done those exercises to show people
2 that -- I think that at least at one level it is
3 possible to proceed within the guidelines.
4 I think that our -- our recommendation would
5 be that any final remedy would be within the state's
6 guidelines. That is clear that that's appropriate.
7 SENATOR HARRIS: Mr. Chairman?
8 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Bruce, are you --
9 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: I have got a
10 couple more.
11 SENATOR HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, before he
12 goes on, I think I need some clarification.
13 Did MGT make a recommendation to the other
14 committee? Since the appropriations committee didn't
15 attend that meeting, was there a recommendation prior
16 made -- made prior to this or is this MGT's --
17 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
18 SENATOR HARRIS: -- recommendation?
19 MR. CROMWELL: Chairman Baker.
20 We shared what our preliminary recommendation
21 was.
22 SENATOR HARRIS: And Mr. Chairman, to
23 follow up on that.
24 Then at that point, that committee suggested
25 you look at something else.
25
1 MR. CROMWELL: That committee suggested
2 that we look at midrange solutions.
3 SENATOR HARRIS: Mr. Chairman.
4 Then the 1B alternative is based on the
5 recommendation of the other committee. Pick an
6 arbitrary number, albeit -- you know, 135 is midway
7 between 120 and 150. They just picked a number and
8 said, "Here is the middle point. Base your
9 recommendation on that" --
10 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: If I could --
11 SENATOR HARRIS: -- or develop a
12 recommendation on that?
13 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: If you would like
14 to respond, but I certainly can from the committee's
15 standpoint as a member of the committee.
16 MR. CROMWELL: Go ahead.
17 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: The committee
18 asked to see figures for a midrange, and that's -- we
19 asked to see those figures as a committee ourselves, as
20 a select committee. And Senator Cathcart also sits on
21 that committee.
22 Would you like to respond?
23 SENATOR CATHCART: Mr. Chairman.
24 I think also there was a lot of discussion of
25 why are we automatically going to the top of the range,
26
1 can we develop a model at midrange that makes sense,
2 does it provide adequate facilities, et cetera.
3 It appears to me that the model you have on B1
4 meets that question, answers that question, and it does
5 provide adequate facility for a typical 775 students at
6 135 gross square feet. So this comes up actually 132.
7 But I think this is a response to questions you were
8 asked in Sheridan. Correct?
9 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
10 That's correct. I would like to add that we
11 have gone through these exercises a few times, and it's
12 been somewhat our practice to always go to the high end
13 of the span to develop costs.
14 We have done that for a couple of reasons.
15 One is, and we all must admit that it's somewhat of a
16 contentious nature, but sometimes when developing these
17 things where we have tried to -- if anything, we
18 probably ought to err on the side of the legislature
19 being generous to the district.
20 The other issue is, I think that it probably
21 behooves us to look at top, outside, greater numbers as
22 opposed to looking at minimal numbers. And these are
23 not -- we are not recommending that the legislature
24 approve a design for 21.8 million or whatever it is at
25 this point. We're just recommending that the
27
1 legislature distribute the design dollars, go ahead with
2 the remedy that's basically configured like 1B.
3 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Mr. Cochair.
4 SENATOR GRANT: I think the key
5 paragraph is on page 2-B. It's the last sentence in
6 there, which says that the review team would make the
7 final design and that it could vary from the 135, but
8 this is for the sake of planning money that this is
9 probably an appropriate range to get into.
10 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Page 2-A?
11 SENATOR GRANT: Excuse me. 2-A instead
12 of B. When you get old, you can't tell As from Bs. But
13 it's attempting to set up a goal and attempting to set
14 up a criteria for a design team to begin work on. That
15 can vary up or down or whatever. I have never seen one
16 go down, but it could vary up or down from that.
17 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Continue,
18 Representative Burns.
19 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Okay. Mr.
20 Chairman.
21 Actually, this discussion was good because it
22 provided a lot of background. My question is, MGT came
23 in with a recommendation of 150 square feet and -- per
24 student. The select committee asked to see figures at a
25 midrange. So MGT -- so I was thinking MGT was going to
28
1 come back, say, here are the figures at midrange, but,
2 in fact, MGT came back and said, no, now we recommended
3 at 135, which is basically a eleven and a half thousand
4 dollars -- eleven and a half thousand- square-foot
5 decrease from your previous recommendation last month.
6 So my question is, what happened in the last
7 month? What are the factors that caused the
8 recommendation to drop, I think, by a substantial amount
9 of space?
10 MR. CROMWELL: Chairman Baker.
11 Representative Burns. Maybe I haven't worded
12 it correctly in here or clearly enough. But what we're
13 recommending is that funds be disbursed to the district
14 to proceed in designing a remedy that is configured like
15 alternative 1B or it's essentially configured like the
16 district's proposal, that that remedy be within the
17 state guidelines and that if that remedy, for instance,
18 is midrange of the state guidelines, it will have costs
19 similar to the ones that we're showing here. But I
20 can't make a recommendation that the remedy be a
21 specific number of square feet per student in the final
22 design until that design is done, until we have gotten
23 there.
24 When we have looked at the schematic design
25 and reviewed it for functionality and done a value
29
1 engineering, then I will be able to come back to the
2 committee and say, we recommend that this remedy be
3 specific size and cost.
4 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: So, if I may
5 interject to make sure that we have this clear.
6 You are not recommending either 21.7 or 20.02
7 or 20.2 million dollars to be released. Your point is
8 that you would like the building to be designed
9 according to Appendix B or something, that be the
10 parameters basically that we go forward with and the
11 money be released to begin the plan drawings. That is
12 basically what you're saying in your recommendation. Is
13 that correct?
14 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
15 That's correct, that the district proceed in
16 designing a remedy that's configured like their proposal
17 or like alternative 2 -- or 1B. Those are the same
18 configurations as far as new buildings and demolition of
19 other buildings. And I think at this point really the
20 size of that remedy is not what we're looking at so much
21 now as the configuration of that remedy and that the
22 district should move ahead and get a detailed schematic
23 design done and then let's evaluate that design to see
24 how efficient it is and how it meets the state
25 guidelines.
30
1 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Mr. Chairman. So
2 I can get it clear.
3 So your specific recommendation -- your
4 recommendation is not as specific as it is written here,
5 because as it's written here, it's set at 135 square
6 feet per student. The review team recommends that
7 alternative 1B be funded for schematic design and 1B is
8 135 feet per -- square feet per student.
9 MR. CROMWELL: Well, and I -- Mr.
10 Chairman and Representative Burns. I think we also say
11 in our recommendation that we realize the final design
12 may vary from 135.
13 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Right, right. I
14 think -- Mr. Chairman.
15 Maybe you don't realize the power of your own
16 influence, and I just wanted to get that clear, that
17 you're more flexible in your recommendation than is
18 written here as far as 1B goes.
19 Mr. Chairman, if I could move on to another
20 question.
21 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative
22 Shivler has a point at this --
23 REPRESENTATIVE SHIVLER: Can I speak,
24 Mr. Chairman, as a cochairman of the other committee?
25 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Yes.
31
1 REPRESENTATIVE SHIVLER: My
2 understanding is, Dodds, and I think I'm clear on this,
3 the 120 to 150 range was put in there because, as we
4 know, a larger school can get by with less square feet
5 per student. In other words, a gymnasium, when you
6 divide it out -- I mean, this is the reason we had that
7 spread.
8 If it's always going to be 150 square feet,
9 every school will be 150 square feet if that's an
10 option. And based on the fact -- and this is my
11 understanding from our last meeting. Based on the fact
12 that we have 755 students in that middle school, that's
13 a sizable middle school.
14 So, I think our feeling was that we could
15 certainly fall within the middle range there rather than
16 going to the top range because 150 square feet would be
17 for a middle school, let's say, that had 500 students
18 where the common facilities, once they were divided, you
19 know, by the number of students in the common facility,
20 you would have more square feet per student. And that
21 was my understanding.
22 Is that yours also?
23 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
24 Yes. Yes, it is.
25 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative
32
1 Burns.
2 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: One last
3 question: In your figure, do you have any money in for
4 demolition of -- I asked you this question last month,
5 too -- for demolition of the middle school?
6 MR. CROMWELL: Oh. Mr. Chairman.
7 Represent Burns. No, we do not have any money
8 in demolition of the middle school because it's not
9 essential to completing the plan. In other words,
10 selling and demolishing -- demolishing and selling of
11 the middle school doesn't really affect the rest of the
12 plan moving ahead. And the district felt that that --
13 at least when we initially talked to them felt that the
14 demolitions costs would be covered by the sale of the
15 property. So it was not necessary to build it in.
16 Maybe they have changed their mind.
17 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Senator Harris.
18 SENATOR HARRIS: Mr. Chairman.
19 Just to make sure I understand what we're
20 saying, the recommendation is to fund the schematics for
21 alternative 1B. Now, would that not then preclude any
22 other alternatives? You can't say do your design based
23 on this option but go ahead and include everything
24 else.
25 So, if we say, you have the funding to develop
33
1 this set of schematics based on this option, then we
2 have made the decision which option they are going to go
3 with, because I wouldn't think any reputable engineering
4 firm, if I came to you and said, I want you to design
5 something within these parameters, would go outside of
6 those parameters.
7 MR. CROMWELL: Chairman Baker. Senator
8 Burns.
9 The parameters are the state guidelines which
10 are 120 to 150 gross square feet. And alternative 1B I
11 think includes an example of what a solution would look
12 like if it was at midrange. And if I have somehow -- if
13 I have said in here that the committee should fund a
14 design that is restricted to 135 gross square feet per
15 student and X amount of dollars, then I need to clarify
16 that's not our intent.
17 SENATOR HARRIS: Mr. Chairman.
18 That would certainly be what I would infer
19 from what you have said. I read here that you say fund
20 for alternative 1B, which is 135 square feet. I would
21 not expect to see specifications coming back at 150.
22 Because we said, limit it to this, I would not expect
23 somebody, you know, a firm to come back and the district
24 to come back afterwards and say, yeah, but we went ahead
25 and did the hundred fifty anyway.
34
1 MR. CROMWELL: Chairman Baker. Senator
2 Burns.
3 Again I will point to the fact that we have in
4 our recommendation included the statement that we feel
5 the final design may vary from the 135 square feet. So
6 I think we have acknowledged --
7 SENATOR HARRIS: Mr. Chairman.
8 As long as it's clear that we and the district
9 are not chained to that 135 if we accept this
10 recommendation, then I'm comfortable with that. But I
11 don't think that's clear if we say fund based on this
12 recommendation.
13 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: That final
14 decision is ours as funders.
15 Representative Reese, you had your hand up
16 next. Would you like --
17 REPRESENTATIVE REESE: Well, Mr.
18 Chairman, I'm a little off the point that we're talking
19 about now, but it's something that's been bothering me
20 for a long time.
21 When we start figuring square footage per
22 student, the example I will use is if you have 400 as
23 opposed to 800. You're figuring in a gymnasium here,
24 and I just wonder why we don't figure core classroom
25 when we are figuring per square foot per student and
35
1 then add the gym on top of that instead of adding a gym
2 in initially and some of these other areas that are
3 going to be the same whether you have got 200 or 400 or
4 700 students.
5 I'm wondering if the state's guidelines are
6 off in that respect. It's just a thought I have had for
7 some time, and this may not be the place to interject.
8 MR. CROMWELL: Chairman Baker.
9 Representative Reese. I think it's a very
10 good point, and I think in the past we have acknowledged
11 the fact that, while the state does have guidelines,
12 gross square foot guidelines that are at the high end
13 across the country, and with some good reason because of
14 the nature of how rural the state is and whatnot, that
15 when you get schools and it's not an absolute number,
16 but when you get them below 450, 400, 350 and they start
17 getting smaller than that, which two-thirds of this
18 state are, then those gross square feet guidelines tend
19 not to work appropriately, and we feel that -- and we
20 have started doing this work of developing models for
21 schools that are smaller than that. We did it for some
22 of the projects in the last round.
23 We would -- and we would recommend that as the
24 commission goes about its work, it would need to develop
25 models or guidelines or some kinds of way to size
36
1 schools appropriately. And there is different
2 approaches to do that, and doing models like this is
3 just one approach.
4 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Go ahead.
5 REPRESENTATIVE REESE: Mr. Chairman.
6 Just another way of phrasing what I was trying
7 to say is, perhaps we should be saying we need this many
8 square feet per student for classroom and hall space,
9 and after we figure that, we need to add room for, say,
10 physical education and for administration, because those
11 are going to be figured very, very differently than your
12 core classrooms are. Just a thought for the future.
13 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Excuse me.
14 MR. CROMWELL: Could I -- Mr. Chairman,
15 could I just follow up?
16 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Yes.
17 MR. CROMWELL: And I'm not trying to
18 take issue with you. I think that's a good
19 recommendation, but, at the same time, one needs to be
20 cognizant of the fact that as you get down in these
21 smaller schools, again, even your square footage per
22 classroom per student tends to go up because you don't
23 want to build classrooms that are based on ten-student
24 classes. But that's sometimes what you have. So there
25 is variation all over.
37
1 MR. TEATERS: Utilization changes like
2 in science rooms.
3 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Yeah, utilization
4 does change.
5 Senator Cathcart.
6 SENATOR CATHCART: Mr. Chairman.
7 It seems to me that was, as I recall -- maybe
8 Representative Shivler can help refresh our minds. But
9 that's part of the task of the new commission is to
10 revisit those guidelines and see if they can come up
11 with guidelines that make more sense for our state.
12 In the meantime, we're still in the transition
13 period, and our task is to try to figure out what these
14 transitional projects, how to fund an adequate
15 facility.
16 So, when I look at your model on B1, that is
17 simply a demonstration that, of course, they don't have
18 to build this exact model, but it's a demonstration
19 that, in fact, 132.43 square foot per student would be
20 adequate. Would you agree with that?
21 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
22 Yes.
23 SENATOR CATHCART: And that's what our
24 task is and I think is to provide an adequate facility.
25 So, it may not come out exactly like this and the
38
1 district may not chose this route, but it's doable at
2 135 gross square feet that they should be able to build
3 a quality facility with that amount of room for 775
4 students.
5 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Mr. Cochair.
6 SENATOR GRANT: Thank you, Mr.
7 Chairman.
8 Yeah, I think Senator Cathcart brings up an
9 excellent point. We have to bear in mind that what we
10 are doing here is dealing with the, quote unquote,
11 pipeline projects.
12 SENATOR CATHCART: Right.
13 SENATOR GRANT: We are not setting the
14 standards for the future or for all in there. While
15 this statement very clearly says, I think, that what
16 we're going to be voting to release money for shall be
17 something within this range, as a -- personally, as a
18 committee member, I am going -- not going to say it's
19 got to be 135 square feet, but I am going to tell you as
20 a committee member, I am going to be very reluctant to
21 vote for anything that exceeds the guideline of 150.
22 And so, while we're speaking that there is flexibility
23 here, I think the flexibility exists both high and low
24 within the parameters that have already been set forth
25 for the pipeline projects.
39
1 That 120, 150 may change down the road. I
2 suspect it probably will. The method of calculating it
3 may change down the road. I suspect it will. But we're
4 speaking of two pipeline projects here, and I am going
5 to be very reluctant to vote for anything that exceeds
6 the current guidelines that are set forth out there
7 myself.
8 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative
9 Burns.
10 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: One last question
11 on demolition and just a common sense question, I guess,
12 because I get the idea of a fund through demolition
13 really wasn't within the range of what you were asked to
14 do. But if we -- if this committee had already given
15 funds for demolition, to another district for demolition
16 of a school there, wouldn't it make sense for us to do
17 the same for Sheridan and probably Powell if that school
18 is going to be demolished, too?
19 MR. CROMWELL: Chairman Baker.
20 Representative Burns. In Powell, since we do
21 have funds for costs for demolition because they are
22 demolishing buildings to put a new building in place, I
23 don't -- the reason the demolition funds aren't included
24 in the cost for this -- and again, these are budgeting
25 costs. I don't think they are cost estimate costs -- is
40
1 that the building doesn't need to be demolished and may
2 not be demolished, from what I was told, that they were
3 going to sell the property.
4 They have been told, advised that it would
5 probably be more sellable if the building was
6 demolished. But that's not necessarily -- has to
7 happen.
8 And so, I didn't see the necessity to include
9 that cost in as something that would be a driver in
10 looking at overall costs.
11 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Mr. Chairman?
12 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Yes.
13 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: I'm not talking
14 about in the report, because what you're saying makes
15 perfect sense. But if we have got -- we have already
16 given money, contingent funding to another school in
17 another district to be demolished and not to be replaced
18 with anything, just to be demolished and that school
19 district has -- if they -- if they chose to demolish
20 that school, they have the right to use those funds.
21 And I'm saying, you know, what's good for the goose
22 should be good for the gander. Why wouldn't the same
23 thing happen to Sheridan County?
24 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
25 Representative Burns. I'm not sure I
41
1 understand. I'm not sure I understand the issue with
2 the other district.
3 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Yeah. Mr.
4 Chairman.
5 I think Representative Tipton is right. I
6 think that's a policy decision on the part of this
7 committee rather than to be asking MGT about it.
8 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Senator
9 Anderson?
10 SENATOR ANDERSON: Thank you.
11 Interesting conversation. I realize that the
12 charge of this committee is cost and many instances to
13 control costs. But are there any underlying studies to
14 indicate that there is a direct relationship between
15 size of school and achievement?
16 The point I'm trying to make here is, you
17 know, I have been in situations where a school gets
18 smaller, obviously, there is restrictions on that. But
19 I have also been in a position to teach in a school that
20 is far overcapacity as a result of shrinking enrollment
21 during that time which I saw really no increase in
22 achievement.
23 My point being here: As we start talking
24 about size of schools, it seems the contention builds
25 and people, they think that you're taking space away
42
1 from them, become -- they bristle.
2 What I'm saying to you is one deals with
3 structure and the other kind of deals with the
4 instruction point. Is there any research to say out
5 there that necessarily if we build a 135-square-foot
6 building in comparison to a 150-square-foot building,
7 that we're going to see an appreciable change in
8 achievement?
9 MR. TEATER: Mr. Chairman?
10 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Dave, I would say
11 that's yours.
12 MR. TEATER: That's mine.
13 Senator Anderson, I'm not aware of any
14 research whatsoever on those kinds of differences.
15 Having been a school administrator for most of my life,
16 I will tell you that those overcrowded buildings are
17 more difficult to manage. But in terms of any research
18 on the 135 versus 150 square feet, I'm not aware of
19 any.
20 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Anything else?
21 Yes.
22 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
23 And just to clarify the point for Senator
24 Anderson, there is research that says smaller schools
25 improves, but that's in reference to the number of
43
1 students, not the square foot.
2 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: I have two
3 questions. What about the core facilities in this?
4 I find it interesting that you almost strained
5 not to add 25 more -- you know, you're saying, boy,
6 we're going to build a bigger core facility in case this
7 thing -- in case this community grows, we're going to
8 build 800 instead of 775.
9 I mean, when you get right down to it, what
10 really is that? You know, quantify that some way. You
11 know, is that a room this size? What are we adding to
12 the cost of building? Very, very little. And what are
13 we gaining by it? Very, very little. Am I exaggerating
14 that?
15 MR. CROMWELL: Chairman --
16 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Am I straining --
17 MR. CROMWELL: Chairman Baker.
18 I think that's very well put. But I will say
19 I think the principle is one that we should look at. In
20 this case, it probably doesn't -- isn't as applicable as
21 some other cases because we have got a fairly flat
22 enrollment projection and we really couldn't see
23 building core for anything more than 800. I mean, we
24 just don't see that happening for a long time.
25 So there is not -- there isn't a great
44
1 discrepancy or difference there. But in principle, what
2 that does is that increases the size -- and again, these
3 are all kind of formula driven. When you get down to
4 design of the specific space, it may change, but it
5 increases the size of the library. It increases the
6 size of the commons. It increases the size of the
7 cafeteria area. So you have the ability to grow without
8 having to add onto those.
9 But you're correct. In this case, it's
10 probably not as an effective principle as it might be in
11 other situations.
12 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: So, your point is
13 800 is about as large as you're going to get in a middle
14 school, in most middle schools, and that's about as
15 large as you're going to want for core facilities? Or
16 am I making this too large of an issue? And so you're
17 close enough to that 800 that you just run up to the
18 800?
19 It doesn't seem like you have done very much
20 to move from 775 to 800 and said, boy, we oversized the
21 core facility. It would seem as though you did that --
22 if there were a theoretical school out here that you
23 were -- that had 560 students and you built a core of
24 800 or a core for 800, but it doesn't seem to me that a
25 student that walks into that would say -- or to the
45
1 teachers that were trying to work that commons area
2 during lunch would notice, boy, you know, this is
3 overbuilt. Is that true?
4 MR. TEATER: Representative Baker.
5 If you'll turn to 2-4, I'll tell you how
6 scientific this was.
7 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Oh. Okay.
8 MR. TEATER: As we were having our
9 discussions about sizing this core, you'll notice that
10 in the projection, it shows in 2004, 2005 that it bumps
11 up close to that 800 line. Of course, all projections
12 are just that. They are projections. And then it tails
13 off a little bit. But then as we go out towards the end
14 of that ten years, it looks like it may come back up a
15 little bit.
16 The further out you go, the less surety we
17 have in that. And so, quite frankly, that was a
18 judgment call on our part, that when you look at those
19 kinds of swings in it, we feel pretty confident that it
20 needs to be close to 800 out here in a couple, three
21 years. Ten years out, maybe not, but there are some
22 other factors in Sheridan that may run that back up that
23 we can't measure. Very simply, that was a judgment
24 call.
25 MR. LONGWELL: Chairman Baker.
46
1 If I may add, the other thing with core
2 elements, you can always -- if enrollment comes up, we
3 can add more classroom. It's those core areas that are
4 going to limit the ability to expand, you know, the
5 commons area, the cafeteria areas and the like. They
6 may never be used, that additional square footage, and
7 it doesn't amount to a whole lot. But it does give them
8 a little bit of breathing room when they do reach those
9 maximum numbers.
10 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: And I understand
11 that. The difference between 775 and 800, I strain at
12 that. I mean, that just seems so small.
13 I'm wondering, you know, okay, with
14 restrictions, Mr. Longwell, that you have told us about,
15 why not go to 950 or the 900 or 850? You just don't see
16 that? Is that your response, Mr. --
17 MR. TEATER: That was my best judgment.
18 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Okay. All
19 right. Now, the next issue that I have is the 85
20 percent utilization. That is very high or high and --
21 I'm trying to remember your exact words, Dodds.
22 MR. CROMWELL: Specific?
23 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Specific words.
24 You didn't use the word high but you used it as
25 attainable and adequate, but at the higher level of
47
1 that. Would we -- the higher level of attainability.
2 How much credence should we give to those that would say
3 that is overly restrictive, as we have already heard
4 from some of the previous pipeline projects?
5 MR. CROMWELL: Chairman Baker.
6 We had discussions with the department of ed.
7 about this and the whole issue of utilization kind of
8 flows around the issues of whether you're using -- you
9 use classrooms all the time, all the periods. So,
10 should teachers have their planning period in their
11 classroom, and, by doing that, they -- that classroom
12 stays empty. And depending on how many periods a day
13 you have and how many periods the classroom is empty
14 kind of establishes that number, that utilization
15 record. So 85 percent is a fairly typical number.
16 Now, I will add, I think it was in Worland
17 that we saw an example where they have four periods.
18 They have longer periods and only four. And I think the
19 Central Middle School is going that route as well. If
20 you take one period out of use, classroom use for that
21 period, you're down to 75 percent.
22 So that number does have -- is -- can be
23 determined by program delivery.
24 Again, I will say, though, that if you take
25 this model -- it's a guide -- okay? -- and one
48
1 approach. I still feel and if we need to develop a
2 model to demonstrate this, we can be within the
3 guidelines. If we use 75 percent, you know, we have
4 still got some flexibility there.
5 So we're not saying it has to be exactly like
6 that model. That model is one example of how the
7 numbers can work out.
8 Dave, did you want to add something?
9 MR. TEATER: No.
10 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Did that help?
11 Mr. Cochair.
12 SENATOR GRANT: Just another
13 clarification.
14 As recall from some of the other statements,
15 when you're talking about that, i.e., the teacher
16 planning room area that we talked about before, I think
17 you mentioned that that doesn't necessarily even apply
18 to all of your teaching stations or classrooms that you
19 have here. Some don't logically fall into that kind of
20 a utilization and some are totally outside of that.
21 So, I think, as I recall, your comments were
22 that utilization rate is quite often a function of the
23 program delivery system within a district. And some may
24 prefer to have that one free room everywhere all the
25 time. Others can do the teacher planning method.
49
1 Others can do a combination of that. But did you not
2 say that utilization rate can be adjusted by the program
3 delivery method within the district and all districts
4 are free to kind of choose what they want to do but not
5 necessarily free to be able to have a low utilization
6 rate because that's what they prefer to have in their
7 program delivery system?
8 MR. CROMWELL: Chairman Baker.
9 That's correct, Senator Larson.
10 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Okay. Anything
11 else on the Sheridan proposal? Any other questions?
12 (No response.)
13 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Final comments
14 from MGT?
15 (No response.)
16 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: If not, we'll
17 take a break until 1:30. Be back here at 1:30.
18 (Hearing proceedings recessed 12:30
19 p.m. to 1:35 p.m.)
20 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Bring this
21 committee meeting back to order.
22 Pleasant day in the neighborhood, beautiful
23 day in the neighborhood. Would you be my, would you be
24 my neighbor?
25 All right. I'll quit that. Are there any
50
1 other questions about the Sheridan project that has come
2 up over the lunch hour? Any other questions about the
3 Sheridan project?
4 (No response.)
5 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: If not, we would
6 like you to step aside for a second and see if there is
7 any response from the Sheridan community and school
8 board or administrators.
9 Senator.
10 SENATOR KINNISON: Mr. Chairman,
11 cochairman, members of the Joint Appropriations
12 Committee and Chairman Shivler. I just want to
13 introduce Tom Pilch, chairman of the board of School
14 District Number 2, Terry Burgess, who is with the
15 administration, and Craig Dougherty, who is our
16 superintendent.
17 Appreciate those of you who could visit us
18 over there. And we offer the invitation to anybody to
19 give us a call over there, to come through, look at the
20 buildings.
21 You have a folder. Each one of you has a
22 folder here with some pictures and what we're doing
23 here. We're looking for value, value engineering,
24 money, so we can go ahead. There is not any architects
25 or engineering firm that's been hired. We're trying to
51
1 follow the procedures that we have heard this committee
2 talk about the last year. I know Senator Cathcart and
3 Senator Larson and Bubba, Representative Shivler, had
4 discussions on this, and we're trying to work through
5 the way the committee is. We listened to MGT's
6 presentation on the square footage. We understand the
7 philosophy behind a hundred thirty-five thousand.
8 I fully well understand how these things can
9 get out of hand. And I appreciate the work that you're
10 doing. The district, I talked with the superintendent,
11 the chairman, accept MGT's proposal for -- is it 1B? --
12 1B and work within the guidelines there, and we would
13 like to get started so we can get the engineering and
14 get some stuff and bring it back to the legislature and
15 hopefully do the model.
16 I have told -- excuse me. I have asked -- I
17 have asked the district on a number of occasions as well
18 as other committee members and I was on the community
19 team that went through this, and it's been through the
20 community, as many of you know that toured over there,
21 that, geez, let's do everything possible to get well
22 within those guidelines to -- you know, to -- you know,
23 if there is something, let's do everything we can to
24 bring that square footage and square footage cost down
25 to what's reasonable and do -- you know, and come back
52
1 and say, geez, this is how we do it and be a good state
2 citizen of the state and of the educational system, and
3 that's our hope.
4 So we would just like to get your endorsement
5 for the facilities or for the value-added engineering
6 and work with MGT and the committee and move ahead.
7 Thank you.
8 SENATOR GRANT: Mr. Chairman?
9 If I can ask, since we're going to have that
10 probably come up, several members of this committee are
11 on the other committee. How many people here have
12 already had the tour of the Sheridan facilities? I
13 guess more than Bubba.
14 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Bubba.
15 SENATOR GRANT: More not than have. But
16 I'm only asking because we'll have a discussion whether
17 we would maybe prefer to do it individually as to
18 whether to set up a group deal and do it. But we'll
19 work something out.
20 I know I personally would like to see them,
21 but I may prefer to do it when I'm there rather than
22 have a whole committee do it, but --
23 SENATOR KINNISON: Mr. Chairman. We
24 will do whatever you want, individually, as groups, twos
25 and threes, however you want to do it. You're welcome.
53
1 And the staff, the administration here will be glad to
2 show you through the stuff. Just let us know and we'll
3 do it.
4 SENATOR GRANT: Did you notice how
5 conciliatory he is?
6 SENATOR HARRIS: I was going to ask if
7 they would bring the real Senator Kinnison back. I
8 don't know who this guy is.
9 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: With his
10 mustache.
11 SENATOR GRANT: Who is that masked man?
12 SENATOR CATHCART: Mr. Chairman, this
13 could be his third good idea.
14 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Okay. Any other
15 questions, levity aside here? We'll get this on --
16 okay.
17 Discussions about the Sheridan project within
18 the committee? Representative Burns.
19 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Mr. Chairman,
20 would it be proper to make a motion at this time?
21 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Yes, it would.
22 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Mr. Chairman, I
23 move that we approve, that this committee approve the
24 $280,000 for the engineering on Sheridan School District
25 Two, Central Middle School, Junior High School and
54
1 keeping in mind that it is within the -- that it's done
2 within the range of the 135 square feet per student
3 rather than as an absolute limit.
4 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Okay. Is there a
5 second?
6 SENATOR LARSON: Second.
7 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: The motion is
8 seconded.
9 Discussion on that?
10 (No response.)
11 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Discussion?
12 (No response.)
13 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Was there
14 discussion previously that got cut off by this motion
15 that's pertinent?
16 (No response.)
17 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Okay.
18 Discussion.
19 (No response.)
20 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: If not, all those
21 in favor say eye.
22 Opposed say no.
23 (No response.)
24 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Ayes have it.
25 The money will be released for the planning process for
55
1 Sheridan 2.
2 Thank you for coming over.
3 By the way, the next item of business will not
4 be Powell. They didn't know they were aced out. We
5 have had another invitation. And Kevin Mitchell, the
6 superintendent from Bighorn 1, I called him last minute
7 and asked him, if possible, if I could see the building
8 in Byron, Cowley, which is just over the county line
9 here not very far. And he has graciously made that
10 offer to me that I can tour those after the meeting
11 today.
12 Kevin, how big do you want the party? How
13 many of us can come if we want to tour the building?
14 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I can take
15 as large a group as wish to come to our buildings. We
16 have six buildings on the immediate needs list. They
17 are located in three different communities and they are
18 all about seven miles apart. I think we can get through
19 those particular buildings in approximately an hour and
20 a half.
21 I'll focus just on the immediate needs
22 buildings. That's what the wish is. I can get
23 transportation from Powell. We can make a circle or I
24 can meet you in Byron or one end will be Byron and the
25 other end will be Deaver. So whatever the wish is.
56
1 I would extend that invitation to the new
2 building commission members also if they would like to
3 attend, anyone else that would like to attend to see the
4 six buildings that we have on the immediate needs list.
5 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: For members of
6 the committee, we will be dealing with this issue on
7 these buildings this coming session, because they are in
8 immediate need, or at least the recommendations that are
9 going to be coming out of the new commission will be
10 directed to us, and these buildings will have the
11 same -- not the same process but the same priority as
12 far as immediate need as the current buildings that we
13 have in front of us.
14 So, that's why I have called and asked. And I
15 apologize for being late, last minute. But how many
16 would be interested in touring tonight after the meeting
17 this evening?
18 SENATOR CATHCART: They got a bar over
19 there?
20 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: They got a bar
21 over there? There is more than one.
22 REPRESENTATIVE SHIVLER: I'm going to go
23 see the seed lab.
24 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: There appears
25 there is about 12 of us or so. So how many would like
57
1 transportation? Or would you like to take your own?
2 Apparently there is no need for a bus then?
3 MR. MITCHELL: I'll meet you at Byron,
4 in front of the Byron High School at what time?
5 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Mr. Chairman, if
6 you could get him to print up some directions, that
7 would be handy.
8 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Well, yeah. You
9 go down 14 till you get to Byron.
10 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Okay.
11 SENATOR GRANT: Stop at the school.
12 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Stop at the
13 school, yes.
14 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: It's on Main
15 Street on your right.
16 MR. MITCHELL: Yeah, it's right on Main
17 Street, and from there I can lead the tour.
18 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Apparently I
19 drove by it.
20 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: If you came
21 through Lovell, you came through.
22 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: It's one of like
23 Emblem. Okay. North of that?
24 MR. MITCHELL: Not north of that.
25 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: I hate to sound
58
1 insensitive but I can't help myself.
2 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Mr. Cochair.
3 SENATOR GRANT: Just a point of
4 clarification: We will be dealing with them but not in
5 the same manner we're dealing with these. They are not
6 pipeline schools. They will first go to the school
7 group.
8 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: They are going --
9 SENATOR GRANT: And they are going to go
10 through there, so it is not going to be the
11 appropriations committee that are making those decisions
12 until it gets to be part of the other thing. So while
13 we will be dealing with them, we're not dealing with
14 them on the same set of guidelines and everything else
15 we're dealing with now.
16 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Well, MGT is
17 going to be making a recommendation. They will be
18 making that recommendation by -- September 1st? October
19 1st?
20 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman. August
21 15th.
22 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: August 15th?
23 MR. CROMWELL: Yes, sir.
24 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: -- on what to
25 do. And that recommendation will be given to the
59
1 select --
2 MR. NELSON: Select committee and the
3 commission.
4 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: -- select
5 committee and the commission. So, we will be dealing
6 with it during session because the select committee does
7 not have a role during session. I presume that the
8 presiding officer will refer those recommendations to
9 this committee, or at least they have in the past.
10 MR. NELSON: Through the budget process
11 that will come to you.
12 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: It will have to
13 come through this appropriations committee at some point
14 in time.
15 SENATOR GRANT: But not necessarily
16 under the same auspices.
17 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: That is right.
18 SENATOR LARSON: They may or may not be
19 referred here. They will still through the budget
20 process but not necessarily be referred through the
21 same --
22 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: That's right.
23 That's correct. We will at some point need to be making
24 a vote on it one way or another.
25 SENATOR GRANT: Yes.
60
1 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Okay. Thank
2 you.
3 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, what time
4 did we --
5 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Okay. Time?
6 SENATOR GRANT: Sometime between five
7 and eight.
8 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: I would say
9 that -- I'm guessing, Mr. Cochair -- about 5:30.
10 SENATOR GRANT: Uh-huh.
11 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: We'll be done
12 about seven. Is that --
13 MR. MITCHELL: That's fine. Thank you
14 very much.
15 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Okay. Go out 14,
16 go till you you get to Byron, stop at the first school
17 you come to.
18 All right. Folks, come on up here again.
19 SENATOR GRANT: Thank you, Sheridan.
20 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: We're now going
21 to deal with Park County Number 1.
22 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Okay. We're on
23 to the Powell school. And the first thing would be the
24 identification of the inadequate conditions. Right?
25 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
61
1 Page 3-1 of your report, you'll see a little
2 chart there that lists the support buildings that make
3 up the Powell High School.
4 Current enrollment is about 578, and they have
5 a classroom building, a gymnasium and natatorium/
6 auditorium that all score less than 49, so they are in
7 immediate need. Also have a small home economics
8 cottage which has a 71 score.
9 So the issue is how to remedy the condition of
10 those three major buildings. The enrollment projections
11 that we did --
12 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Before we go any
13 further, I need to ask about these conditions scores.
14 When I looked at Sheridan, and I had the
15 luxury of looking, of going through that, that main
16 building in Sheridan ranks 15 points above the classroom
17 building here in Powell.
18 Let's talk about counterintuitive. As I walk
19 up to the two of them, there is no comparison between
20 the quality or what I see as the value of the building
21 here compared to the value of the building in Sheridan.
22 That Sheridan building is significantly dilapidated
23 compared to this one, both internally and externally.
24 How do we get such a huge disparity in the
25 score? What drove this score down to a 34?
62
1 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
2 I haven't gone back and looked at exactly how
3 the systems were scored, but I do know that there was
4 significant problems with the structure system and with
5 all the major infrastructure systems at Powell High
6 School, so that -- and those are the big ones. The
7 structure, exterior, shell, the roof, the mechanical
8 system, electrical, plumbing, all of those had
9 significant problems that really drove this score.
10 I would need -- to give you much more specific
11 answers than that, I would need to pull out the scores
12 and review those. And more than happy to do that. We
13 think here they are.
14 There is also some notations here in a couple
15 places about asbestos. So the evaluator had some
16 concerns about asbestos in the ceilings, in the floors.
17 But basically that's -- those major systems were all
18 downgraded for various reasons.
19 I think the tour pointed out some of the
20 problems in the building structure. When you have
21 problems in a building structure like that, it tends to
22 start radiating through a lot of different places. You
23 see the structure starts moving and the exterior shell
24 starts getting damaged and start getting -- if you start
25 getting leaks, then you start damaging interior
63
1 finishes.
2 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: But I saw more
3 movement in Sheridan than I saw in Powell. Am I
4 confusing something here? Am I overlooking something?
5 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman, again, I
6 would have to go back and kind of do an analysis on how
7 the scores got to where they are to give you a much more
8 specific answer.
9 Do you have Sheridan?
10 REPRESENTATIVE REESE: While they are
11 looking, perhaps we should clarify exactly what the
12 scoring is. Does that reflect the cost of bringing the
13 condition back up to code? Is it a percentage of cost
14 of a new building? Or exactly what does the scoring
15 mean?
16 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Exactly what does
17 the scoring indicate?
18 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
19 The score is a compilation of the scores that
20 have been applied to all the building systems. So each
21 building system is scored good, fair, poor,
22 unsatisfactory, and then each building system is
23 weighted based on its contribution to the total value of
24 the building.
25 So, for instance, if the structure of the
64
1 building included 16 percent of the total value, total
2 cost of the building, and its total possible point is
3 600 points and then it's given a score and it gets --
4 receives 75 or 50 or 25 percent of that listing point,
5 so we compile all the system scores to get a total
6 building score.
7 Because the scoring system is set up that way,
8 you can take that score and say that, in this case of
9 the classroom building, 34 percent of that building is
10 in good condition, or, conversely, 68 percent -- no --
11 66 percent of that building or the value of that
12 building is in unsatisfactory condition and needs to be
13 reinvested back into that building. So it's a high
14 level budgeting plan, a way to arrive at the -- an
15 estimate or a projection of the deferred maintenance of
16 the building.
17 Mr. Chairman, was your reference to the junior
18 high or to the central middle?
19 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Actually, both
20 Sheridan. Either one looked significantly less stable
21 in Sheridan than the building here in Powell.
22 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Mr. Chairman?
23 I would just like to echo, you're not the only
24 one that feels that way, too, having gone through the
25 building, not just being from Sheridan. This scoring
65
1 has actually made me kind of wondering, too, not the
2 least of which the fact that the Central Middle School
3 in Sheridan was actually the same age when this school
4 started -- was first built, Sheridan was the same age it
5 is now. So in other words, the Sheridan Central Middle
6 School is 84 years old. And it shows it.
7 I have got the same problems. There is all
8 kinds of structural problems I see at the Sheridan
9 schools that I didn't see here and yet the scoring was
10 15 points higher.
11 So I'm with you, Mr. Chairman. I'm trying to
12 figure out to get the sense of the scoring system they
13 have.
14 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative
15 Philp.
16 REPRESENTATIVE PHILP: I don't believe
17 the age of the building plays a part in the scoring.
18 Does it?
19 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: No. It's
20 condition.
21 MR. CROMWELL: Yeah, that's right.
22 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative
23 Shivler.
24 REPRESENTATIVE SHIVLER: Mr. Chairman.
25 Dodds, in the handout we had this morning from
66
1 the school, they went down and broke down what it would
2 take to bring it up to standards if we brought the
3 existing building up. And two of the major issues here,
4 as a matter of fact, almost three million dollars of
5 them, were the educational deficiencies and the seismic
6 structural.
7 Now, that was bringing that up to the 2B? Is
8 that right? Is that what that 2.5 million was, to bring
9 it up to -- it says 2000, 2-B, low to moderate.
10 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
11 That's the seismic code?
12 REPRESENTATIVE SHIVLER: Right.
13 Mr. Chairman.
14 My question is this: Is that a guess or is
15 that an engineering study?
16 MR. CROMWELL: That -- Mr. Chairman.
17 That cost came from their engineer, structural
18 engineer.
19 REPRESENTATIVE SHIVLER: And they have
20 done a structural appraisal of that building?
21 MR. CROMWELL: I don't think they have
22 done a -- Mr. Chairman.
23 They have not done a detailed seismic
24 appraisal or structural study of that building. They
25 did do one of the gym. So this was, again, a higher
67
1 level look than a detail analysis.
2 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: And you don't
3 have to justify their figures. Whatever -- you know,
4 don't -- you're not trying to, but I want to make sure
5 that you're not on the hook for their figures.
6 MR. CROMWELL: Can I get back to the
7 committee with a comparison of the scores?
8 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Sure.
9 MR. CROMWELL: Hopefully explain that
10 difference. And if, in fact, there has been an error
11 made, we'll root that out.
12 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Okay. Sure.
13 Mr. Cochair.
14 SENATOR GRANT: Referring to the
15 seismic, is Sheridan in the same seismic zone as
16 Powell? Does anyone know?
17 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
18 I don't believe so.
19 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Sheridan is zone
20 1. Powell is 2-B.
21 SENATOR GRANT: Okay. So is it not
22 possible, then, that some of the differences -- does
23 that not affect the rating now that we're including
24 seismic in that?
25 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
68
1 Does that affect the cost?
2 SENATOR GRANT: No, the rating.
3 MR. CROMWELL: The score?
4 SENATOR GRANT: Yeah.
5 MR. CROMWELL: No.
6 SENATOR GRANT: So in these ratings,
7 seismic really isn't included as a part of that, because
8 we just adopted the inclusion of that seismic, and the
9 reason we haven't had seismic before, everybody wonders
10 how we could be doing that, is seismic in most places
11 was not part of the building code. And that's why we
12 didn't figure it was appropriate to put anything in the
13 rating that wasn't part of the building code. So in
14 these ratings, seismic is not included.
15 Is that correct?
16 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
17 That's correct, Senator Larson. The
18 evaluators look at the structure of the building to see
19 if there is any damage or any movement or any, you know,
20 problems with it. They do not do a seismic analysis.
21 That's a much more time-intensive, thorough study that's
22 just not within the scope of work that the evaluators
23 can do and any of the conditions we're trying to get
24 done.
25 SENATOR GRANT: I just want to make sure
69
1 I understood that.
2 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Thank you. I
3 just thought we needed -- I needed to express my
4 consternation with that low rating of what appears to be
5 a higher-valued building. Okay?
6 MR. CROMWELL: Okay. Understand.
7 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: You were, I
8 think, getting ready to go into enrollment projections
9 before I cut you off.
10 MR. CROMWELL: The enrollment
11 projections were done just like Sheridan, using a cohort
12 survival method and in consultation with the district to
13 see if there were any other factors that might affect
14 the enrollment.
15 Their one comment was, over the years the
16 enrollment had gone up and down in cycles, but the
17 projections tend to indicate the enrollment is on a
18 decline and as low as 320 something? I believe. Yeah,
19 390 -- as low as 390 to as high as 529. So there will
20 be declining enrollment.
21 Educational suitability, we felt the existing
22 buildings could be renovated so that they would be
23 educationally suitable to deliver the basket of goods.
24 So doing a renovation was a viable alternative.
25 We look at -- I think we ended up looking at
70
1 six remedies, costing out six variations on the new --
2 on page 3-5, the first remedy was the original -- the
3 district's original grant proposal, and this was for a
4 new school, essentially replacing the existing
5 facilities.
6 The existing facilities are about 202 square
7 foot -- 202,000 gross square feet. That includes all
8 three of the big buildings. And this proposal was sized
9 at about 194,000 gross square feet. And the size -- and
10 it would have accommodated 636 students, which, again,
11 is taking last year's enrollment and adding 10 percent.
12 Then we looked at another remedy of doing a
13 completely new school per state guidelines, and this --
14 we did this on a -- down the middle of the guidelines,
15 165 gross square feet for 540 students, and then we also
16 add 25 square feet per student for assembly space.
17 Then we looked at, alternative 3 was to
18 renovate the existing facilities. We felt that that was
19 viable since the buildings could be made suitable.
20 One concern here was, renovating the existing
21 facilities would obviously disrupt the educational
22 process in those buildings, to have to do some kind of
23 temporary housing of the students while they renovated
24 the classroom building.
25 The one positive thing about that -- well,
71
1 there is a lot of positive things about renovation of
2 the existing facilities, but they do have a lot of
3 facility there in the natatorium/auditorium. They have
4 a very good-sized gym.
5 So, to go by the state standards now, you
6 would not get that size of facilities. So renovation of
7 the facilities would allow the district to keep some
8 good-sized facilities and keep a natatorium/
9 auditorium.
10 Then we looked at renovating the classroom and
11 gymnasium building -- I mean, building a new classroom
12 and gymnasium building on another site close, near the
13 natatorium/auditorium. We felt this was a viable
14 alternative because the natatorium/auditorium don't
15 really need to be on the same campus to be used as far
16 as the educational program. You know, kids could travel
17 a small distance back and forth to use the swimming
18 program. The auditorium is kind of a special-use thing
19 that doesn't have to be right on the campus.
20 This remedy kind of spoke to the whole issue
21 of, you know, if a district had facilities that
22 historically had been maintained by the state using the
23 major maintenance funds, do those facilities get
24 grandfathered in when we go through a process like
25 this? And speaking here specifically of the natatorium
72
1 and auditorium, or if -- you know, if a district builds
2 a new school on a new site, are those facilities
3 necessarily abandoned or can the district keep using
4 them?
5 So, there were a lot of issues going on here,
6 questions popping up we didn't have clear policy on what
7 to do.
8 Then we looked at a -- we talked -- about that
9 point, we were leaning toward this fourth alternative,
10 and we talked to the district a bit about it, and they
11 started scratching their head and they had some public
12 meetings and they started thinking that they would like
13 to do that but they would like to do it on the existing
14 site.
15 So they would replace -- they would like to
16 replace the classroom building and gymnasium on the
17 existing site of the gymnasium and just renovate the
18 natatorium/auditorium. This will cause some disruption
19 to their program. They felt that -- the community, I
20 think, voiced their opinion. They would like to keep
21 the school downtown, centrally located. It would allow
22 them to -- by reconfiguring their gym and classroom
23 building into one building, it would allow them to make
24 more efficient use of the existing site. So, they would
25 open up that whole lot for the existing classroom
73
1 building so they can have outdoor courts and some more
2 additional parking, which they are short of.
3 So we took that alternative and we essentially
4 priced it out into two different schemes, one at
5 midrange and one at the high end of the standards.
6 On page 3-8 you'll see some projected costs
7 for each one of those alternatives and the impact to the
8 major maintenance payments. That's over 30 years.
9 In this case, the reduction in square footage
10 when we replace the classroom and gym is significant
11 enough even though we got new building that it is
12 reducing what the major maintenance payments would be
13 over 30 years.
14 We -- this was a tough one for our team. We
15 felt there was value in renovating the existing
16 buildings. We also felt that there was long-term value
17 in building a new building.
18 As one of the team members said, you know, as
19 stewards of the public dollar and the facilities long
20 term, shouldn't we be building -- trying to have
21 efficiently run, efficient buildings for the public,
22 updated buildings? And, consequently, because the
23 projected costs are really pretty close to whether or
24 not we renovate the existing buildings or whether we
25 build a new classroom and gymnasium on the same site, we
74
1 felt because the new classroom, gymnasium building would
2 give us an up-to-date building and over the next 50
3 years, we will probably save, as a community, anyway --
4 or as a community, we would save in operation costs, we
5 would have more efficient a building, that that was
6 probably the most cost effective way to attack the
7 problem.
8 Again, we have gone ahead and said that we
9 would recommend that the natatorium/auditorium building
10 be renovated and grandfathered in even though it's
11 beyond the -- what the state guidelines would normally
12 deliver.
13 So we're essentially recommending that the
14 district be given planning money to look at renovating
15 the natatorium/auditorium and replacing the classroom,
16 gymnasium building with new building on the same site.
17 Anything else to add, Dave?
18 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative
19 Tipton.
20 REPRESENTATIVE TIPTON: My question is
21 and goes back a ways, because, as we went through these
22 buildings today, there were pointed out a lot of
23 asbestos, and I remember a number of years ago Kelly
24 Walsh spent several million dollars in Casper to get rid
25 of it, what is the status of the asbestos that's in
75
1 these buildings? Is that something that's going to
2 become a problem?
3 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
4 Some of it -- in a renovation, you would take
5 out some of the asbestos or all of it. And that's one
6 of the costs, one of the factors driving the renovation
7 costs up.
8 REPRESENTATIVE TIPTON: Mr. Chairman.
9 How are they getting by with it now? Can they
10 seal it off and pass the inspection? Is that how they
11 have been handling it?
12 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
13 I probably should defer to the district to
14 answer that question, but that's my assumption, that
15 it's encapsulated or it's not friable, so it's not
16 causing any hazard.
17 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Senator
18 Cathcart.
19 SENATOR CATHCART: Mr. Chairman.
20 I have a couple of questions and it has to do
21 with the renovation of the natatorium/auditorium.
22 If we were to build a new facility, we would
23 not include those because they don't fit the standard.
24 Do you agree with that?
25 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
76
1 Senator Cathcart. We would not include a --
2 what we would do again is we would say, you know, build
3 it within the standards, between 150 and 180 gross
4 square foot per student plus we're -- the policy gives
5 you 25.
6 SENATOR CATHCART: Right.
7 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: So you add all
8 that space up. And beyond all that, if the district
9 wanted to somehow carve an auditorium into that space,
10 the standards don't necessarily say they can't as long
11 as they are within the standards. So, there is not an
12 allocation for the natatorium. And I would find it hard
13 for a design to fit one in and still have all the other
14 typical spaces.
15 SENATOR CATHCART: I guess my question
16 is, in these cost estimates, how much is included in
17 that renovation for the natatorium/auditorium? How much
18 of the total amount of these construction costs does
19 that amount to? Is it right on the sheet in front of me
20 and I just don't know where to look?
21 MR. CROMWELL: It's kind of buried.
22 About 4.1 million, 4.2.
23 SENATOR CATHCART: The other part --
24 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
25 I'm sorry. That's just the building cost.
77
1 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Explain that.
2 What do you mean, that's just --
3 MR. CROMWELL: In your big spreadsheet,
4 that's the cost of before we add on general conditions,
5 contingencies, architect's fees, all that. That's kind
6 of just --
7 SENATOR CATHCART: You think it's more
8 than that when you add in painting, all that.
9 Okay. Now, Mr. Chairman, the other thing I'm
10 hearing here that concerns me a little bit is the idea
11 that we grandfather something in. I think that's an
12 area where I think this committee wants to be very
13 careful because all of a sudden you grandfather
14 something in for a 540-student school and sometime down
15 the line you're down to 200 students but they are
16 grandfathered in for certain things.
17 I don't think we have ever talked about
18 grandfathering anything in to any district. Where did
19 that idea come from? That's the first time I have heard
20 it today.
21 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
22 Senator Cathcart. That idea came from us,
23 from our team. It's not policy that we have been
24 delivered. We tussled with that issue when we started
25 looking at these different remedies, approached it in
78
1 that manner.
2 SENATOR CATHCART: So, then, Mr.
3 Chairman, if I might continue.
4 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Yes.
5 SENATOR CATHCART: School districts --
6 let's just pick one. Let's just pick Jackson or
7 Campbell County where they have pretty elaborate
8 facilities. We grandfather something in here, then
9 those other districts would be entitled to grandfather
10 in any other thing they have had in the past also.
11 Would that set a precedent that we may want to be
12 careful about?
13 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
14 There has been a lot of discussion about what
15 sets precedents and what doesn't. I think that's a
16 legal issue probably beyond my scope to answer.
17 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Senator
18 Anderson.
19 SENATOR ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr.
20 Chairman.
21 Along the same vein as Senator Cathcart, I
22 spent a considerable time in schools and visiting
23 schools and being involved with planning. I'm very
24 impressed with the facilities that I looked at today
25 that are 40 years old. It shows that this community
79
1 over time places a very high value, very high priority
2 on education, both by what they've built in the past.
3 Even though it may be structurally not sound now, I see
4 there was a lot of thought given to some very
5 instructionally -- some very instructionally sound
6 ideas.
7 The point that I am making to go along with
8 what Senator Cathcart said, if this community has set,
9 in my opinion, typically a somewhat higher standard, a
10 higher place, a higher value on education than perhaps
11 other communities in the state.
12 For us then to grandfather this local standard
13 into the package that we are constructing in the state
14 appears to me that it really offers a bit of a challenge
15 to this committee, in order to bring the whole state up
16 by grandfathering may become a whole new standard.
17 Now, to me that's a compliment to Powell, but
18 it's also a challenge to appropriately running the, I'll
19 say, risk of bringing that standard into this, then
20 having to bring the standards up to meet that.
21 Do you see that as being problematic in regard
22 to the grandfather process? That's the way I feel.
23 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
24 It certainly could bring up issues. We look
25 at it a couple of ways. We look at it -- you know, in a
80
1 certain sense, the state has been paying the district
2 major maintenance funds for these facilities. So, in a
3 certain sense, there is some acceptance for those
4 facilities by the state that they are part of the
5 educational mix or facilities.
6 So, we thought, that's one state that kind of
7 accepts these facilities. We didn't really have clear
8 policies or guidelines that if we replaced a school that
9 had those facilities, could the district maintain them
10 on their own? Could they pick them up? Boy, I don't
11 see that happening.
12 So -- and I think we have an issue with
13 enhancements, Senator Anderson, that if the state
14 doesn't fund the natatorium/auditorium and district
15 steps up to the plate and funds the renovation of it,
16 then that could become the standard also down the road.
17 Yes, it could be problematic. It brings up a
18 whole lot of issues. I think a lot of them are legal,
19 and I kind of want to avoid handing out legal
20 conclusions.
21 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Senator Harris,
22 you were next or would you like to yield to Senator
23 Cathcart to follow?
24 SENATOR HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I would
25 like to backtrack to some of our discussions this
81
1 morning.
2 I believe I heard at some point this morning
3 that this committee is not setting the standard, this
4 committee is dealing solely with pipeline projects and
5 that that in no way establishes the standard for future
6 projects.
7 Now, if that was what I heard and that is
8 correct, then I think we deal with each one of those
9 projects and we deal with them on a case-by-case basis
10 and we do not establish the standard. We're just
11 saying, these are already here. This is how we're going
12 to deal with it. We have the commission and the
13 legislature to set that standard in the future.
14 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Senator Harris,
15 there may be disagreement as to the validity of us not
16 setting a precedence if we go forward. I would say we
17 were told very early in this meeting by commission
18 members that they were going to be watching what we were
19 doing as direction on how they will proceed.
20 Yes, I think we have a significant danger of
21 setting -- now, that's my opinion. I think that there
22 are others who do not hold that opinion, that sets the
23 standard. I think we have a significant danger of doing
24 it, of setting statewide standards.
25 Anyone want to respond to that?
82
1 SENATOR HARRIS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
2 guess, then, what I need to see is our statutory
3 authority to set that standard. I don't believe we have
4 that statutory authority. I believe if the commission
5 chooses to follow our example, that's a decision on
6 their part and policy that they are establishing.
7 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Well, number one,
8 we are making a recommendation to the legislature, but
9 our recommendation has weight and the legislature's
10 actions can set standards.
11 SENATOR HARRIS: I don't know how much
12 weight our recommendation have.
13 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Well, I don't --
14 SENATOR CATHCART: Mr. Chairman?
15 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Senator Cathcart,
16 you have the floor now.
17 SENATOR CATHCART: Well, Mr. Chairman,
18 in response to that, as we developed and worked the
19 projects, the pipeline projects last year with Worland
20 and Buffalo, Kaycee, Casper, we worked on those projects
21 last year, we tried to stay as close to the old existing
22 standards as we could. We worked from existing
23 standards? Is that correct?
24 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
25 That's correct.
83
1 SENATOR CATHCART: And I don't see us
2 doing anything different now.
3 Now, difference now is, the natatorium/
4 auditorium doesn't fit within the existing standard. So
5 are we doing something by adding, by grandfathering that
6 is not consistent with the standard we have, that we did
7 the other pipeline projects by.
8 I don't see us creating a new standard here.
9 I just say maybe we should stick with the old standard
10 until the commission develops more in this transition
11 period.
12 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Mr. Cochair.
13 SENATOR GRANT: Mr. Chairman. I think
14 there is a decided difference between us going to set
15 new standards and making a conscious act of
16 grandfathering something. I don't think they are the
17 same thing.
18 Grandfathering is taking a conscious,
19 deliberate act and setting policy. I think that is
20 subject to many, many problems, most of which would be
21 legal. Not setting standards for future buildings is
22 one thing. Grandfathering something is a conscious act
23 that we would be making as a committee that I think
24 could set a precedent, something that -- I think that's
25 the difference between the two philosophies.
84
1 SENATOR CATHCART: My point exactly.
2 SENATOR GRANT: So I guess I too have a
3 problem with the grandfathering aspect. I can't see an
4 end to it. I think we would be setting ourselves up and
5 the legislature up for -- we're going to build whatever
6 is there, replace whatever is there, no matter -- and
7 this is the key. This is the key -- no matter what the
8 funding source.
9 Senator Cathcart used Jackson as one of the
10 examples. But whether they are elaborate or not
11 elaborate, whatever --
12 SENATOR CATHCART: They are.
13 SENATOR GRANT: -- the bottom line is
14 this: that was paid for by local people with sales tax
15 money. It wasn't paid for by the State of Wyoming. If
16 they wish to do that, that's one thing. But
17 grandfathering something that all districts are then
18 going to have to be able to come up to that threshold I
19 think is a dangerous precedent. And grandfathering I
20 have -- I'm having a severe problem with it in my mind.
21 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative
22 Burns.
23 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Mr. Chairman, a
24 few questions somewhat related.
25 I have never got it clear from Senator
85
1 Cathcart's question. Of the recommended alternatives,
2 which is five, the natatorium/auditorium, how much is
3 that -- of that 21.8 million, how much of that is for
4 the natatorium/auditorium?
5 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
6 4.2 million.
7 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: You just said the
8 building. I got confused.
9 MR. CROMWELL: That's the hard costs.
10 That's the cost associated with the renovation. And
11 then on top of that you add, you know, all these other
12 columns that are on the chart, the inflation,
13 architect's fees, so on.
14 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: So it would be
15 safe to say five -- is that -- all those contingency
16 fees are included in that 21.8?
17 MR. CROMWELL: Yes.
18 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: So it would be
19 safe to say it would be closer to five million.
20 MR. CROMWELL: Four and a half, five. I
21 don't have it --
22 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: So if we go with
23 this argument and the concern expresses itself about the
24 natatorium/auditorium, the grandfathering and so forth,
25 so we pull that out of the equation, we're actually
86
1 looking at about 16.8 million, about, if we follow
2 alternative 5?
3 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
4 Yes, round numbers. okay.
5 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Okay. I see
6 where you're -- I proved my math to be strong this
7 morning.
8 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Mr. Chairman, I
9 just wanted to illustrate another alternative here
10 should this committee chose to go this way.
11 I have got a few more questions just for my
12 understanding of some of this.
13 On option 3, which is the renovation, the 23.6
14 million, that's to renovate all the buildings?
15 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
16 That's correct.
17 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: The Tartan Gym
18 and the natatorium/auditorium also.
19 MR. CROMWELL: That's correct.
20 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: And then the
21 other question: With the preferred alternative or the
22 proposed alternative number 5 which would be to tear
23 down the existing high school, tear down the Tartan Gym
24 by the new high school where the Tartan Gym is and then
25 there would be an auxiliary gym built with that high
87
1 school, with that new high school, so basic -- and the
2 Tartan Gym right now is two gyms.
3 So, as I understand it, my understanding,
4 basically Powell -- at the end of this whole thing,
5 Powell is going to end up with one less gym than they
6 currently have.
7 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
8 Yes. With the model we built to kind of look
9 at the spaces that would be included in this kind of a
10 scenario -- before I speak -- there is just one gym
11 included.
12 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Just the one --
13 I'm sorry. I -- wrong term to my part. There would
14 just be just one -- the one gym. So they would end up
15 less one gym than they currently have.
16 MR. CROMWELL: That's correct.
17 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Mr. Chairman, I
18 have got another question dealing with the model, but
19 I'll get into that later.
20 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Could you turn to
21 page C-1?
22 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: That's the
23 model.
24 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: I see the number
25 2 after gyms. Explain the difference between that,
88
1 because that's -- okay. It's under TS. I presume that
2 is --
3 MR. CROMWELL: Teaching stations.
4 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Oh. Okay. You
5 could be running two different classes in that same gym
6 but you only have one gym quantity if -- okay. Okay.
7 Now that makes sense.
8 You have the Powell school follow-up on
9 Representative Burns, the Powell school system would go
10 from having gym space now of four -- three practice --
11 okay. Actually has -- the Tartan Gym has two practice
12 gyms in it and the other gym, the existing, the old gym,
13 and it would go basically to having just one gym that
14 could be broken into two practice areas, if you will.
15 Is that correct?
16 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman. That's the
17 design that the model is based on.
18 Again, I want to go back and really
19 reiterate. We're not saying that they have to design it
20 that way. They need to design a school that would be
21 able to provide the required basket of goods. And if
22 they want to provide a gym that has nothing but one
23 basketball court, the freedom is there for them to do
24 that. Most schools don't want to do that.
25 If they can deliver the basket of goods
89
1 without a specific art room, my feeling is they should
2 have that flexibility. But we have built a model that
3 contains those spaces in kind of outline sizes, and the
4 size gym we have used is a competition court gym which
5 also has two separate cross courts.
6 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: How much square
7 footage will the district -- you had a comparison in the
8 Sheridan school district, you know, that they would be
9 tearing down 190,000 square feet and they would be
10 replacing that with about 158,000 square feet, a net
11 loss of about 30,000 square feet. Do you have -- I
12 don't see those same figures here in the Powell.
13 MR. CROMWELL: If you're looking at the
14 spreadsheet, the big one, and depending on the
15 alternative, the existing square footage of those three
16 buildings is 202,000 gross square feet. So, depending
17 on which alternative you do.
18 MR. LONGWELL: The recommendation item 5
19 or proposal 5 would reduce total square footage 76,000
20 square feet.
21 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Reduce it by 76.
22 So the net would be about 120\ --
23 MR. LONGWELL: 126.463.
24 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Mr. Cochair.
25 Oh. Frank. I'm sorry.
90
1 REPRESENTATIVE PHILP: Go ahead.
2 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Frank, you had
3 that --
4 REPRESENTATIVE PHILP: We'll let Mr.
5 Cochair.
6 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Mr. Cochair.
7 SENATOR GRANT: I understood we were
8 told this morning that the junior high, middle school
9 has no gymnasium. Is that accurate? And they do use
10 the new gymnasium. Is that correct?
11 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. They do have
12 a gymnasium.
13 SENATOR GRANT: They do have a
14 gymnasium. I wanted to make sure of that because as we
15 talk about cutting one out, if the use was -- would we
16 then be going on to have to then immediately build a new
17 one for the either junior high, middle school, I guess
18 it is. They do have a gymnasium.
19 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah.
20 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative
21 Philp.
22 REPRESENTATIVE PHILP: Mr. Chairman.
23 I guess my concern about the proposal number 5
24 alternative was that last year -- we're allowing them to
25 go ahead with a lot more square footage than our
91
1 guidelines, and last year we put guidelines in here.
2 And it will be another thing if this were the cheaper
3 proposal per student. More cost-efficient proposal, I
4 guess, would be the more correct thing to say. But the
5 proposal -- if we built a new high school according to
6 state standards, that would be about 29,500 a student
7 and this proposal will cost about 38,000 per student. I
8 believe that's right. And I guess I would feel a lot
9 better about it if that renovation was less costly than
10 building new, but it appears it's not.
11 That's just a statement, I guess, more than a
12 question.
13 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Senator
14 Anderson.
15 SENATOR ANDERSON: Thank you.
16 I'm curious about the relationship and perhaps
17 the reliance of the rest of the community to the public
18 school, public school being K-12, the rest of the
19 community being the reliance or the dependence upon the
20 facilities that we're discussing by the community
21 college locally based and community recreation
22 programs.
23 The essence of the question is, if we were to
24 build a facility that fairly -- purely fairly strictly
25 met the state standards and we moved the existing
92
1 facilities and replaced them with those that met the
2 basket of goods, how dependent, how deficient would that
3 leave the community in regard to the college, in regard
4 to the community recreation, subset questioning being,
5 then what obligation do we have as a legislature who is
6 involved with school funding to meet that whole standard
7 of the community reliance.
8 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
9 I would really think it appropriate for me to
10 defer to the district representatives to address Senator
11 Anderson's questions as far as the community use of the
12 facilities.
13 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: We'll get to them
14 when they respond.
15 MR. CROMWELL: I can say, though, that
16 we have not been in a district yet that has not told us
17 that the community uses the school facilities heavily.
18 High school most typically is a community center in most
19 Wyoming towns.
20 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative
21 Burns.
22 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Mr. Chairman.
23 The difference between alternative 4 and
24 alternative 5, they both call to a new high school and
25 to renovate the natatorium/auditorium. The difference
93
1 is the existing site versus a new site and there is a
2 difference of 1.3 million dollars in that cost.
3 Is that all demolition cost? What constitutes
4 the difference?
5 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
6 It's demolition costs and temporary housing
7 costs and -- I think that's the significant one --
8 that's the majority of it.
9 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: And also that
10 alternative 4, building the high school on a new site
11 and renovating the natatorium/auditorium, what -- under
12 that alternative, what happens to the Tartan Gym?
13 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
14 That's a very good question and brings up this
15 whole issue of the gym and the classroom building, what
16 happens to them. Are they abandoned? We didn't have
17 clear policy as to what the state would do in a case
18 like that. But I think it brings up a whole issue of
19 what happens to those facilities, who is responsible for
20 them and who can use them and so on and so forth. We
21 don't have the answer to that question.
22 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Dave Nelson.
23 MR. NELSON: Just as clarification, in
24 the new system, once it gets going and the districts put
25 together and assemble their five-year plan, they will
94
1 address these if they are not addressed now. At some
2 point they have to put in their plan what they plan for
3 these buildings, whether they plan to dispose of them,
4 use them, whatever. So, at some point, they would be.
5 MGT is looking at them as they relate just to
6 the specific remedy and stop there. The only time that
7 they are considering a demolition is if that's necessary
8 to execute the remedy. But if it's not, then they just
9 leave it alone and then that hopefully would be picked
10 up in that local planning process and would be addressed
11 eventually one way or the other.
12 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative
13 Burns, you had a follow-up?
14 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Mr. Chairman, it
15 actually goes off to -- on another question about the
16 model, if that's all right, if nobody else --
17 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Sure.
18 Certainly.
19 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: I was looking at
20 the difference in the models between the Sheridan --
21 proposed Sheridan middle school and the Powell middle
22 school. And the core facilities you have got down
23 there, you take that into account. For instance, the
24 media center, the Sheridan one, because it's 775
25 students versus 539 for Powell High School, you do take
95
1 that in account.
2 So, for instance, the media center is built
3 for eight -- to handle 800 versus 600. But in the arts
4 area, for instance, the figures are exactly the same.
5 And I'm wondering why you didn't make a adjustment there
6 of 20 percent greater, which is about what they are.
7 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
8 When you -- oh. The art, the choir room and
9 the band room --
10 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Right.
11 MR. CROMWELL: -- Representative Burns?
12 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Right. For
13 instance, the science, special education room, you have
14 got the number of rooms. I'm sorry. It's the arts I'm
15 thinking of. And, for instance, you have got -- the
16 school is 20 percent bigger, but you have got the same
17 requirement in terms of arts.
18 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
19 Represenative Burns, they could be given -- in
20 both cases, we have given, appropriated one choir room
21 and one band room in each model.
22 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Right. I'm just
23 wondering, where is the breaking point? Where does this
24 threshold come that you will suddenly say, okay, you're
25 going to have two rooms or, say, two smaller choir
96
1 rooms? One is 20 percent bigger than the other, and yet
2 you're designating the same art facilities to both of
3 them. And so at what point is the threshold that you
4 would rate, 40 percent, 50 percent, what --
5 MR. TEATER: Mr. Chairman.
6 Representative Burns, I'm just thinking of
7 some schools that I have worked on. And I -- you can
8 help, too, Gordon. But I think we were looking at -- we
9 started looking at multiple band rooms or multiple choir
10 rooms at around the sixteen, eighteen hundred student
11 levels because those larger spaces can accommodate
12 larger class sizes. So it would be a significant jump.
13 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: So the threshold
14 is way up there.
15 MR. TEATER: Way up there, yeah.
16 MR. LONGWELL: Representative Burns, is
17 the question on the art class classroom or the music?
18 I'm not --
19 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: It was in the --
20 well, in the arts in general in your model. And
21 basically you have got -- you have got basically a
22 little over 500-person school and an 800-person school,
23 and yet you're providing the same amount of space and
24 the same number of classrooms for the arts. So there is
25 going to be -- there is going to be greater pressure on
97
1 the Sheridan one than there would be on the Powell one.
2 I'm just wondering where -- you know, I'm not expecting
3 Sheridan to get two rooms because, you know, you're not
4 talking about -- I was just wondering where that
5 threshold fell.
6 MR. LONGWELL: Typically where you run
7 into that, if you teach band or you teach vocal, music,
8 is, you know, you can only accommodate so many
9 instruments in a room, and you may find that in a school
10 with 775 students that you actually do have a slightly
11 bigger band but you're not going to see it
12 proportionately that much bigger.
13 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Okay. Thank
14 you.
15 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative
16 Shivler.
17 REPRESENTATIVE SHIVLER: Mr. Chairman.
18 Just a quick question for Dodds.
19 On the site cost, I notice that -- I mean, it
20 looks like when we do the new high school, which is
21 significantly larger, 194,000, does that include the
22 cost of the site or is that just your paving, curb,
23 gutter, landscaping?
24 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
25 That's just the site work. The cost of the
98
1 site costs are in miscellaneous.
2 REPRESENTATIVE SHIVLER: So that's
3 actually your cost of improvements on the site.
4 MR. CROMWELL: Yes.
5 REPRESENTATIVE SHIVLER: So I see they
6 are all the same except I see some of them -- the
7 schools are significantly smaller. It seems there would
8 be an adjustment there, but, again, I know that's an
9 estimate. That's still 40 percent of the cost of the
10 building.
11 When you get down to number 5 there and number
12 4, you know, 8,000,000 of the building costs, then your
13 site costs become 40 percent, and you get back up to the
14 top here, it's worth $17,000,000 and your site cost --
15 that seems a little excessive for an $8,000,000
16 building.
17 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
18 I think we need to examine those numbers. I
19 think you're right.
20 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: It appears that
21 an alternative that is not on this sheet by far could be
22 the cheapest. The only thing that is problematic would
23 be what to do with the students in the meantime would be
24 to use the existing site and completely build brand-new
25 from the ground up. Is that right?
99
1 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
2 Well, essentially number 5 does that with the
3 exception it doesn't build brand-new
4 natatorium/auditorium.
5 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Yeah. So if we
6 deducted that natatorium/auditorium out of there, you're
7 about there. I mean, if we decide that that cannot be
8 grandfathered and should not be appropriate, that's --
9 yeah, we are there.
10 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
11 Again, we felt it was appropriate to include
12 it because we -- you know, today the state is saying
13 that that's an educational facility that the school is
14 accepting and is part -- you know, at least if not
15 stated publicly by the fact that they are funding the
16 maintenance of those buildings. So, we felt it was
17 appropriate that those buildings be included in a
18 renovation program.
19 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative
20 Reese, did you have your hand up?
21 Senator Harris.
22 SENATOR HARRIS: And I understand the
23 term grandfathering may be of concern to members of the
24 committee, but I think that it's important, Mr.
25 Chairman, to go back and look at the document in front
100
1 of us, which is a review of facility inadequacies, and
2 on page 3-1 of that report, we read that "the natatorium
3 and auditorium have been identified as inadequate and in
4 immediate need." We recognize in this document that
5 there is an inadequacy and an immediate need that should
6 be addressed.
7 Now, if in this document we recognize that and
8 then refuse to take any action, what position do we
9 place ourselves in in that case?
10 I agree. You know, saying we're
11 grandfathering it may not be the way to term it. But as
12 has just been pointed out, we're already funding the
13 maintenance of that. We have accepted -- the state has
14 accepted the responsibility for that facility. We have
15 recognized in the report that there is a need that has
16 to be addressed there.
17 I think if we chose to address -- or chose to
18 refuse to address that, we may find ourselves in
19 considerably more problematic areas than just saying,
20 well, you know, this alternative will address it.
21 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Well -- go ahead,
22 Dodds.
23 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
24 Just to further the discussion a bit and not
25 that I'm suggesting or recommending this, I do think
101
1 there are going to be emphases, though, where the
2 recommendation for the remedy may be to close a building
3 because of lack of enrollment or because of a lot of
4 different reasons.
5 So, it could be -- you know, it could be
6 consistent to say, well, we're going to close these
7 buildings. I find it hard to believe, though, that the
8 community would, you know, close the buildings. I mean,
9 seems like they would keep using them. I guess they
10 would have to pay for them.
11 SENATOR HARRIS: Mr. Chairman?
12 If we made a recommendation that a building be
13 closed and the community chose to ignore that
14 recommendation and do something on their own, then they
15 have made a decision. But if we refuse to address the
16 issue, I think that's quite different.
17 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Thank you,
18 Senator.
19 Anything else? Any other questions about the
20 presentation?
21 (No response.)
22 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Ten-minute
23 break.
24 SENATOR LARSON: Yeah, but I would like
25 to suggest, I'm not used to this kind of temperature.
102
1 I'm about to cook and I understand what you go through
2 in the school. But those of you who couldn't hear,
3 move, get some chairs, move up closer. These rows are
4 open now. We can turn the air conditioner back on for
5 at least a little while.
6 So if you move up, you can maybe hear and we
7 can be air-conditioned.
8 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: How about a
9 fifteen-minute break, then, to cool off? Fifteen-minute
10 break.
11 (Hearing proceedings recessed 2:48
12 p.m. to 3:03 p.m.)
13 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Call the
14 committee back to order.
15 Further presentation on the Powell situation?
16 Are you wrapped up?
17 MR. CROMWELL: We're wrapped up, sir.
18 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Okay. Further
19 questions? Questions that have come up?
20 Senator Cathcart.
21 SENATOR CATHCART: Mr. Chairman.
22 I'm not quite clear on a couple things. If we
23 take the option where you tear the gyms down, demolish
24 the gym, build a new school there, what then happens to
25 the space where the football field and the stadium and
103
1 all that is? Does that get consumed by the new school?
2 Then what happens about stadium space? I'm not clear on
3 what happens there.
4 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
5 Senator Cathcart. It's my understanding that,
6 I believe the district has looked at this with their
7 architects, they can put a classroom, gymnasium building
8 in the location where the existing gym is now. It
9 wouldn't affect the stadium. The stadium would just --
10 SENATOR CATHCART: Stay the same.
11 MR. CROMWELL: -- stay the same. It
12 would need some renovation but it would stay the same.
13 And then where the -- the site where the existing
14 classroom is, that building would get demolished, and
15 then they would move their outdoor courts there, tennis
16 courts and that kind of thing, and then also have some
17 additional parking, which they are very limited on now.
18 SENATOR CATHCART: Mr. Chairman?
19 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Yes.
20 SENATOR CATHCART: Just one follow-up:
21 When we were on tour this morning, the guy that was
22 telling us all the business this morning indicated a
23 million or so dollars for renovations on the track,
24 stadium, that stuff. I'm not sure the number, but it
25 was a million or more than that.
104
1 Is that money included in these estimates that
2 we're talking about today also?
3 MR. CROMWELL: Yes.
4 Mr. Chairman.
5 Yes.
6 SENATOR CATHCART: Thank you.
7 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Mr. Chairman?
8 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Go ahead.
9 Representative Burns.
10 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Alternative 5,
11 which is the preferred alternative, one of the concerns
12 about, say, for instance, renovating the high school was
13 displacement of students while the high school was being
14 renovated.
15 Under alternative 5, you're going to -- the
16 students would be able to stay in the current classroom
17 building while the new building was being built but the
18 gym would be demolished. So they would be somewhat
19 displaced. In other words, they couldn't -- there would
20 be a number of athletic programs they couldn't indulge
21 in for six months or a year, whatever it is. Is that
22 correct?
23 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
24 That's correct.
25 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Further questions
105
1 from the committee?
2 (No response.)
3 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Further questions
4 from the committee?
5 SENATOR ANDERSON: One quick question.
6 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Senator
7 Anderson.
8 SENATOR ANDERSON: Are there other gyms
9 within the community, like this facility at the
10 community college? Would the high school be able to
11 participate at home in a facility, say, on the college?
12 MR. LAIRD: It would take cooperation
13 with the college. We do have some other gyms. They're
14 not regulation sized, but at the middle school, that is
15 a regulation gym. We have nonregulation gyms at Park
16 Side and South Side -- I mean, West Side and we have
17 South Side, space we could use for some of the practices
18 and things of that nature. We would have to extend the
19 day, the length of day to do that. But I believe
20 through community cooperation, we could make it happen
21 for a reasonable period of time.
22 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Mr. Cochair.
23 SENATOR GRANT: I was going to wait till
24 you got up here, but as long as we're up to that, does
25 the community have other auditoriums? Other
106
1 auditoriums?
2 MR. LAIRD: No.
3 SENATOR GRANT: Is there one at this
4 facility?
5 MR. SHOCKLEY: There is a small one here
6 at this facility.
7 SENATOR GRANT: Do you know what this
8 capacity is, the one here?
9 MR. SHOCKLEY: Approximately --
10 SENATOR LARSON: Just a guess.
11 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Four to six
12 hundred probably.
13 MR. SHOCKLEY: Four to six hundred.
14 SENATOR GRANT: And there is not -- then
15 none of your other schools have auditoriums as such.
16 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: The answer is
17 no. It's hard to get that head shake on the recording.
18 The answer is no.
19 Okay. Any other questions?
20 (No response.)
21 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: If not, thank you
22 very much.
23 We'll hear from Park County School District
24 Number 1 administration and/or board.
25 MR. BLEVINS: We'll take the hot seat.
107
1 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Yes, please. And
2 for the record, you'll need to identify yourself for the
3 court reporter.
4 MR. BLEVINS: I'm Dave Blevins. I'm the
5 chairman of the board for the Park County School
6 District Number 1.
7 And we thought that option 5 was a very good
8 compromise. It allowed us to maintain the natatorium
9 and the auditorium which has historically been here for
10 50 years. My parents voted for the bond issue to build
11 that. And by having that, it has allowed us to develop
12 programs. Other schools within Wyoming have. And that
13 we would wish to keep. And that's primarily swimming.
14 We also have thought or considered the
15 enhancement proposal that would allow us to build the
16 kind of gym complex that we would like to have. We
17 haven't discussed it in writing with the JAC, but I
18 think that's an option that the Supreme Court has
19 allowed us.
20 We want to continue our community support,
21 because, as we all know, facilities don't make the
22 school. Our school has scored very high, consistently
23 high in WYCAS testing, which is the legislature's method
24 of testing our schools.
25 So what we want to do is prepare our students
108
1 and continue to prepare our students as we move into the
2 21st century with the new facilities that would
3 adequate -- would meet the new teaching methods and
4 technologies that we're moving into very rapidly.
5 Schools aren't rooms anymore. They are
6 laboratories where all children can move and learn
7 together. And that's kind of -- I think we could
8 renovate the building, and I have no objection to doing
9 that if that should be your wish. But I think we're on
10 the threshold of advancing that standard that I think
11 you talked about, Senator Anderson, that Powell has set
12 and that we would like to maintain that standard, and
13 part of that is making a new facility that would meet
14 new needs.
15 MR. SHOCKLEY: I'm Harold Shockley, the
16 superintendent of schools here in Powell. And I would
17 echo some of the same things that Mr. Blevins said.
18 The standard of education in Powell has been
19 very high for a long period of time. This community has
20 placed a high priority on education and support of
21 education.
22 As we look at the accomplishments of Powell,
23 I'm very proud of those. But those don't happen without
24 the support of our community, without the ownership of
25 the education program of the community. And, yes, one
109
1 of the things that I believe is at fault, and I heard
2 you discuss, the facilities look very good.
3 The standard in Powell has been set years ago,
4 and we have maintained it, that we need to protect the
5 taxpayers' dollar, and we have tried to do that.
6 There are some things we're not able to
7 maintain of infrastructure type. But as you walk in and
8 you look at those buildings, they look good. And I
9 would concur with that. That has enhanced the
10 educational opportunities for kids in this district.
11 And I would hope that because we have maintained that
12 standard, that would not be held against us as we look
13 at options to try to meet the immediate needs of the
14 Powell community and the educational opportunities for
15 kids in Powell.
16 As we look at some of the options, as Mr.
17 Blevins said, feel that the option 5 is a very good
18 compromise. And we're willing to try to work. We tried
19 to listen. Our community said that they wanted to keep
20 the facilities downtown. So we're trying to look at
21 that as an option.
22 We also have heard the other parts that our
23 community has said as far as some of the pieces that are
24 critical, and that has been auditorium and natatoriums
25 and the gym area. Some of that we may need to step up
110
1 on our own and try to maintain.
2 The other part is that, as we're maintaining
3 that, I would hope that we would be able to receive
4 operational funds rather than have to go to a sinking
5 fund to carry everything as we move forward.
6 I would encourage if we could look at option
7 5, option 6. Option 6 would give us latitude. As Mr.
8 Cromwell said, that doesn't say it's X classrooms and Y
9 spaces. It says it's so much footage. And that would
10 allow us to work with our community and design the space
11 that we would need, the most appropriate to fit needs of
12 the Powell community.
13 As in anything, compromise is exactly that.
14 It isn't perfect. But as we look at the options that
15 are available, feel that that would probably be the best
16 way to move forward and looking at education into the
17 future.
18 Education is no longer student in rows in
19 classrooms. You folks helped set the standards and the
20 expectations that we're supposed to meet educationally
21 now in all communities in Wyoming.
22 Part of the WYCAS moves away from rote
23 knowledge to demonstration of performance. That doesn't
24 happen sitting in seats. It takes laboratories, it
25 takes other ways that you can manipulate space and
111
1 instructional opportunities for kids to help them get
2 there.
3 I would encourage, if it meets the pleasure of
4 this group -- we obviously have a very vested interest
5 in what happens to our kids. We are willing to try to
6 work with you in reaching resolve, work with our
7 community in reaching resolve. I think the bottom line,
8 though, that has given our board, our administration,
9 is, bottom line, what's best for kids. And I would hope
10 that we would keep kids and education as the focal point
11 as we make decisions, not necessarily bottom lines on a
12 ledger page.
13 Thank you.
14 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Questions?
15 REPRESENTATIVE PHILP: Mr. Chairman?
16 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative
17 Philp.
18 REPRESENTATIVE PHILP: Did you get any
19 assistance from the community as far as if you were
20 above the state standards, if they will be willing to
21 step up to fund what you get above state standards or
22 what you built above statistic standards?
23 MR. SHOCKLEY: Have we taken a poll on
24 that? No. What I would say is there is some very high
25 priorities for the community. That is one of the things
112
1 we heard in virtually every meeting, the importance of
2 the auditorium, the importance of the natatorium, the
3 importance of the gym and the gym spaces to support
4 programs as we are. Those spaces are used extensively
5 throughout the day and even outside of the school year.
6 I believe with the priority for education and
7 some of those components that help add to the quality,
8 as Mr. Anderson said, I think that there has been a
9 precedent set in this community of support of
10 education. Has there been a poll on it? No.
11 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative --
12 Mr. Cochair.
13 SENATOR GRANT: Considering
14 enhancements, and we're talking about that because of
15 obviously additional gym space and auditorium,
16 natatorium, what is the bonding capacity of your
17 district, available bonding capacity?
18 MR. SHOCKLEY: Approximately eight
19 million. That would be max.
20 SENATOR GRANT: And that's all available
21 at this time.
22 MR. SHOCKLEY: (Nodded head.)
23 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative
24 Burns.
25 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: In the community,
113
1 again, is there any sort of split in terms of opinion or
2 strong opinion one way or the other of new high school
3 versus renovation or would people generally be happy
4 either way?
5 MR. BLEVINS: I think we have had a full
6 discussion on building the new high school, moving the
7 high school and most recently talking about renovating
8 the high school. And that's been healthy because we
9 have -- we do have feelings on all of those issues. I
10 think we have coalesced around the idea of building the
11 new high school and possibly enhancing our initial
12 classrooms and/or gym facilities and maintaining the
13 auditorium and natatorium. And I think that that is --
14 it is a compromise, but we have come together behind
15 that, I believe.
16 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Go ahead.
17 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Mr. Chairman.
18 I'm going to be asking -- or I'm going to be
19 asking the MGT people about the possibility of splitting
20 the cost of renovating the natatorium/auditorium,
21 because the natatorium, I agree with a number of people
22 in this community and I think that there is a concern
23 that that is an enhancement; whereas, the auditorium
24 that's within the standard, and that Tartan Gym is one
25 of the best facilities in the state, especially for a
114
1 town this big, and the people of this town should be
2 proud of themselves for having it and having paid for it
3 years ago and maintained it.
4 So it -- to build a new school, to have one
5 gym, the town is used to having this great facility. So
6 can the town afford to actually pay for the renovation
7 of half the natatorium/auditorium, the natatorium
8 portion of that, plus a new gym facility such -- such as
9 the Tartan Gym?
10 I mean, that's something that has to be
11 considered here.
12 MR. BLEVINS: It certainly does, as we
13 search for that ultimate outcome, and the compromise is
14 certainly a big part of that.
15 We hadn't put the package together like that
16 yet. We had actually talked about keeping the Tartan
17 Gym because the older gym is very difficult to
18 renovate. But we were concerned that that would be --
19 that space would be backed out of the model. And the
20 way we could think of it is that would be the
21 community's contribution, that although it's already
22 paid for, that would be the community's contribution to
23 the enhanced portion of our gym facilities and that we
24 would still have -- if we didn't back that space out of
25 the model and we were able to have a 10,200-square-foot
115
1 gym as well as keep our Tartan Gym, we have kind of done
2 the same thing, and by keeping the Tartan Gym, that is
3 the community's contribution that has actually already
4 been made. So we would not need to have to go to them
5 and ask for a bond issue.
6 Does that make sense?
7 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: To an extent.
8 MR. BLEVINS: And that's one way to
9 approach that, that problem of the bond issue or would
10 we have enough support to support both an auditorium
11 bond and gym bond.
12 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Continue,
13 Representative Burns.
14 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Yeah, Mr.
15 Chairman.
16 Because what I'm thinking about, maybe the
17 cheapest route might be -- with the concern of members
18 of the committee with the enhanced nature of the
19 natatorium, to back that out of the renovation model and
20 make that the global enhancement at, let's say, about
21 2.4 million, something like that. Then you go to the
22 renovation model. That knocks it down to 20.5 million,
23 which -- which actually puts it cheaper than alternative
24 5 and you don't have to come up with enhancement of a
25 new Tartan Gym because the renova -- the Tartan Gym is
116
1 included in the renovation at state expense.
2 MR. BLEVINS: Now, when we talk about
3 the Tartan Gym, we're talking about two -- there are two
4 gyms in one building --
5 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Right, right.
6 MR. BLEVINS: -- Tartan Gym.
7 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: I'm talking about
8 the entire building, because in the renovation model,
9 that's included in that.
10 MR. BLEVINS: And that's -- I think
11 that's true, yes. I question that because of the severe
12 need for the old part of the gym.
13 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: I can only go by
14 what the MGT said, and they said that's included. I
15 specifically asked if that's included in the reno --
16 that's in the renovation model. Right?
17 MR. CROMWELL: What's included?
18 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: The gym.
19 MR. CROMWELL: Yes.
20 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Thank you, Mr.
21 Chairman.
22 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Further?
23 How would the community feel about the losses
24 MGT has lined out of 76,000 square feet of usable
25 space? How --
117
1 MR. SHOCKLEY: I believe -- excuse me,
2 Mr. Baker. They would not be pleased with that. Part
3 of the way you look at combining the three facilities
4 into more of a common space, there is a lot of space
5 that is used up in foyers, boiler rooms, et cetera, that
6 would not be -- as you put them under a common roof,
7 common space, that would not detract from some of the
8 classroom, the hall space, you know, the other usable
9 space.
10 So, the loss of space has been a point of
11 discussion, very pointedly point of discussion
12 throughout all of this. But I believe as we would look
13 at trying to adjust the spaces and use the spaces more
14 efficiently, we would have very close to the quality of
15 space, usable space that we do now for academics and
16 program support. We would still lose some but not --
17 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: So the
18 administration and the board are comfortable with the
19 idea that the new space is going to be so much more
20 usable that we will let that other space go because --
21 to go to number 5, I mean. That's the compromise you
22 basically settled on.
23 MR. SHOCKLEY: I believe as we look at
24 programs and going down the road for the next 50 years,
25 that -- and is everybody going to agree with that? No,
118
1 Representative Baker, they are not.
2 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: We're aware of
3 unanimous and how often that happens among 60 of us let
4 alone 6,000. So -- 90 of us, actually, when you
5 consider the whole legislature. So unanimity is not the
6 goal.
7 SENATOR CATHCART: We always agree in
8 the senate.
9 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: You also agree to
10 disagree.
11 Further questions? Anything else that you
12 would like to tell us?
13 MR. SHOCKLEY: Question of
14 clarification, if I could ask: The proposal that Mr.
15 Burns is putting forth, are you saying -- excuse me.
16 Representative Burns. Were you saying renovate
17 everything except the natatorium?
18 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Mr. Chairman?
19 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Yes.
20 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: As I -- and this
21 is just my opinion. The natatorium is -- is an
22 enhancement. We -- we had that discussion that we have
23 got a concern, a very large concern that if the state
24 goes to pay to renovate the natatorium, that could set a
25 standard for the rest of the state.
119
1 That's why I asked MGT if it's possible to
2 back out the portion of renovating the natatorium, make
3 that a local enhancement and then have the state -- you
4 back that out of the cost, assuming it's about half --
5 might be a little more. I don't know. But then you go
6 with renovation, renovating everything else. Everything
7 stays in place. Yes, you do have displacement of
8 students for a year or so, but you end up with an
9 enhanced school, a enhanced Tartan Gym all, you know,
10 good as new and all the space that you had before and
11 plus the community does not -- the community doesn't
12 have to go through a four-, five-million-dollar
13 additional bond issue to build new gyms, because the
14 current number 5 right now, you're going to end up with
15 one gym. The community is going to have to put forth to
16 build a new Tartan Gym.
17 MR. SHOCKLEY: Thank you.
18 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Senator
19 Cathcart.
20 SENATOR CATHCART: Mr. Chairman, I want
21 to follow up on that.
22 First of all, I still -- I must be kind of
23 slow here. Now I hear -- I get confused. We talk about
24 tearing down the gym, building a new high school there.
25 Then I hear you say, wait, there is two gyms. Are we
120
1 going to tear down both gyms to build the new high
2 school?
3 MR. SHOCKLEY: Yes.
4 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: That's number 5.
5 Clarifying Senator Cathcart's question, that's number 5
6 and 6. Either of those alternatives would tear down
7 both gyms.
8 MR. SHOCKLEY: Yes.
9 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: You have come
10 back with a proposal that's not on the table that you
11 might be able to keep one of those, but that is not 1
12 through 6.
13 MR. BLEVINS: That's not 1 through 6.
14 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Okay. Senator
15 Cathcart?
16 SENATOR CATHCART: Okay. Now, the other
17 question that Representative Burns raises regarding
18 enhancements and natatorium/auditorium, et cetera -- I
19 guess my question is to MGT.
20 We talked about auditorium assembly area of 25
21 square feet per student. Using that, which is the
22 standard, doesn't the auditorium existing, using that
23 standard, constitute an enhancement?
24 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
25 Senator Cathcart, I believe that's right. I
121
1 don't know the exact size of the existing auditorium,
2 but I do know -- I think it's --
3 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Thousand.
4 MR. CROMWELL: Thousand?
5 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Thousand fifty is
6 what we were told today.
7 MR. CROMWELL: It's larger than what the
8 current policy would provide for the district if it was
9 a brand-new school. So my assumption would be that a
10 portion of that auditorium went beyond the standard and
11 consequently a enhancement.
12 SENATOR CATHCART: Thank you.
13 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Mr. Chairman?
14 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Senator -- or
15 Representative Burns.
16 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Then -- then I --
17 then I will redress my request to MGT.
18 Can the figures be backed out for that
19 particular building? Assuming the natatorium is -- is
20 an enhancement and anything over, I guess, the student
21 body size for the auditorium is an enhancement, can --
22 can a figure be arrived at saying that this -- the
23 whole -- it's going to cost so much to enhance the
24 entire building -- to renovate the entire building, but
25 this percentage falls within the standard and the state
122
1 should pay for that and the rest would be a local
2 enhancement? Can that figure be reasonably arrived at?
3 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
4 Representative Burns. I think so. Clearly
5 there are some items like the renovation of the locker
6 rooms that are clearly a part of the natatorium, and
7 there are going to be other things that are kind of
8 buildingwide systems that would be hard to do that. You
9 could take the cost for that and prorate it based on the
10 square footage. And I think that would be a reasonable
11 approach. I'm sure there would be some bickering or
12 dickering back and forth but that --
13 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Mr. Chairman.
14 I'm sure -- yeah, there's going to be some
15 wild -- you're going to be coming back saying, should
16 the state pay for the fly, which, is that an
17 enhancement, and that's substantial.
18 MR. CROMWELL: But I think it could be
19 done.
20 SENATOR CATHCART: Mr. Chairman?
21 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Go ahead.
22 SENATOR CATHCART: One more question.
23 Now, the 25 square feet, which is the standard
24 for the assembly area, which would be an auditorium or
25 whatever, that square footage is not included in the new
123
1 school and the new gym?
2 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
3 Senator Cathcart, yes. The question is 25
4 square feet per student assembly space is in addition to
5 the 165 gross square feet.
6 SENATOR CATHCART: Okay. That makes it
7 clear. It's not included in the 165 square feet.
8 MR. CROMWELL: No.
9 SENATOR CATHCART: Okay.
10 MR. CROMWELL: And just by way of
11 clarification, that's not a standard as much as it is
12 just department of ed. policy that was established last
13 time --
14 SENATOR CATHCART: Right.
15 MR. CROMWELL: -- last pipeline.
16 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: I stand
17 corrected. Thank you.
18 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Mr. Cochair.
19 SENATOR GRANT: Looking again, which
20 that's what we're here for is to look for compromises
21 and possible solutions, Representative Burns suggested
22 one. If we were to go with even number 5 and take out a
23 portion, as he has suggested, of the auditorium/
24 natatorium, do you believe the community -- recognizing
25 you would have a new high school but it would be a new
124
1 high school with one gym and less square footage, do you
2 think the community would be willing to -- or not be
3 willing to. I don't want to put it that way. Do you
4 think there would be any movement among the community to
5 try to provide enhancement money for adding another gym,
6 let's say, to the new high school if it were to be built
7 over there and the other one torn down?
8 In other words, you're going to be losing a
9 lot of gym space among other space. Do you think -- and
10 anything above the one gym would clearly be an
11 enhancement on a new school. If they are not willing to
12 accept the one gym and the reduction in space, do you
13 think the community itself, through bonding or whatever
14 method, would be willing to treat an additional gym
15 facility as an enhancement to get you back to
16 approximately where you are?
17 MR. BLEVINS: Well, I would certainly
18 hope so. I think it would give us an opportunity to
19 really -- now that we have had those types of facilities
20 for so long, that we would be able to build exactly what
21 we want. And that's part of the issue here, is that our
22 community wants to build what we want to build and not
23 be subject to someone else deciding for us. And I think
24 that might give us that opportunity to do that. A small
25 slice of pie as it may be, I think that's an opportunity
125
1 to direct our own future.
2 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Mr. Cochair,
3 continue.
4 SENATOR GRANT: The last thing we want
5 to do is stand in the way of your community being able
6 to provide for your students what you want to provide.
7 At the same time, as you have heard previously, we have
8 the obligation to the rest of the state to be certain
9 that we're not funding things that are over and above
10 what other districts perhaps may wish to fund for
11 theirs.
12 So, I would hope we can find a way somewhere
13 here to provide what is necessary to meet the standards
14 of the state and come up with -- and still not stand in
15 the way of you being able to provide whatever you wish
16 to provide for your students.
17 MR. BLEVINS: Thank you.
18 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative
19 Tipton.
20 REPRESENTATIVE TIPTON: Mr. Chairman,
21 thank you.
22 And this may be a question kind of for our
23 staff. If they don't know the answer, I would like for
24 them to look for it.
25 When we come up with major maintenance for the
126
1 schools, there are a number of schools that have pools,
2 have swimming. Are we including that square footage or
3 are we including that in how we calculate the major
4 maintenance?
5 MR. NELSON: We'll find that out. I
6 can't answer.
7 SENATOR CATHCART: Mr. Chairman, a
8 follow-up on that.
9 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Mr. Cromwell.
10 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
11 They are included. All educational buildings
12 are included, educational buildings being defined as
13 buildings that have some kind of student instruction
14 going on in them.
15 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Everybody hold a
16 hand up here.
17 Senator Anderson, you were next.
18 SENATOR ANDERSON: Yes. Several
19 questions, and I'll make them quick.
20 First of all, I assume that your community has
21 a separate recreation board, separate from the school
22 board. Some communities are kind of one and the same.
23 The question being, how much millage does that
24 recreation mill generate for you? Have you had
25 conversation and to what degree and what depth with
127
1 community rec. in regard to some of the issues that
2 we're talking about here?
3 The other is at what depth and degree have you
4 had conversation with your local community economic
5 development people with regard to that whole discussion
6 here. And I note Powell has quite a reputation for
7 economic development.
8 So, I'm just wondering where you're at as a
9 community in regard to that involvement of all those
10 other groups that may come into play as regards
11 enhancement. Where are you at this point in time?
12 MR. SHOCKLEY: Mr. Chairman.
13 Senator Anderson. In regards to the
14 recreation district, Powell does levy one mill, as many
15 communities do. And then there is a separate recreation
16 board that functions and administers that program
17 throughout the community.
18 Starting last year, the board for the first
19 time did start to pay a portion, a small portion, of --
20 they help us underwrite some of the costs during the
21 summer of the pool.
22 During the rest of the year, candidly, they
23 have not paid anything in regards to lights, utilities
24 or anything else. We have tried to work our maintenance
25 crews, custodials around so that we're not duplicating
128
1 cleaning.
2 We have looked at that, candidly, as an
3 enhancement within the community because it places a
4 different ownership. They are our schools and not your
5 schools. But just last year for the first time, the
6 recreation board did put a small amount into and then
7 they also provided some custodial costs during the
8 summer in the natatorium.
9 In regards to the economic development, as far
10 as pointed discussion in that way, we have not -- to my
11 knowledge, we have not met formally with committees to
12 look at that.
13 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative
14 Burns.
15 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Mr. Chairman.
16 Boy, I hate to ask this question, but it
17 was -- but it occurred to me after the question about
18 renovating an auditorium larger than the standard and
19 that hair was successfully split. So if that's the case
20 and if renovating a larger auditorium meets the
21 standard, constitutes an enhancement, would not
22 renovating three gyms also constitute an enhancement?
23 SENATOR CATHCART: Yeah.
24 SENATOR HARRIS: Mr. Chair.
25 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Is there a
129
1 professional opinion about that? If not, we'll let that
2 rest.
3 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Well, good.
4 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative
5 Reese, did you have a question?
6 REPRESENTATIVE REESE: Mr. Chairman. A
7 couple of questions.
8 One of the earlier discussion that we had was
9 centered on building a new high school at a new site.
10 Is that site already owned by the district?
11 MR. BLEVINS: Yes.
12 REPRESENTATIVE REESE: It is already
13 there. Under that proposal, new high school, new site,
14 was an auditorium and/or a pool included in that?
15 MR. SHOCKLEY: Yes, it was.
16 REPRESENTATIVE REESE: Per state
17 guidelines, not the district's proposal but per state
18 guidelines?
19 MR. BLEVINS: The way we approached it
20 is we were replacing what this community had built over
21 the last 50 years.
22 REPRESENTATIVE REESE: Mr. Chairman.
23 That would have been under the district's
24 proposal.
25 MR. BLEVINS: District's proposal.
130
1 REPRESENTATIVE REESE: I was wondering
2 about per state guidelines, new school, new site, was
3 there a auditorium and pool included?
4 MR. BLEVINS: There was a small
5 auditorium, no pool.
6 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Mr. Chairman.
7 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Mr. Cromwell.
8 MR. CROMWELL: There was a assembly
9 space allocation of 25 square feet per student added to
10 the 165 gross feet per student for the basic facility.
11 So there was an allocation for an auditorium added to
12 that. And so that's number 2, and it comes out to about
13 102,000 square feet.
14 REPRESENTATIVE REESE: Mr. Chairman?
15 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Continue,
16 Representative Reese.
17 REPRESENTATIVE REESE: More a comment
18 than a question then.
19 It seems like this entire discussion would
20 boil down to the question of is a pool a part of the
21 educational basket. That's really what we're arguing
22 about, we're kind of hassling over. Are we going to
23 provide a pool for every new high school that we build
24 in the state or not? To me that's what it all comes
25 down to.
131
1 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Senator Harris.
2 SENATOR HARRIS: Mr. Chairman.
3 First of all, I think we need to focus on what
4 we're talking about. We're not talking about building a
5 pool. We're not talking about funding the building of a
6 pool. We're not talking about funding the renovation of
7 a pool. We're talking about funding the schematic
8 design and just the schematic design.
9 I would suggest we already have ourselves in a
10 quandary because if we're using state dollars to pay for
11 the operation and maintenance of those pools around the
12 state, we're already funding an enhancement. And if
13 we're saying we can't fund this enhancement, then I
14 would suggest that perhaps we need to go to every school
15 that has a pool and say we're not going to fund that
16 anymore.
17 So, you know, I think those are big questions
18 that the -- that counsel and the legislature are going
19 to have to resolve between now and the end of the next
20 session. I think at this point all we have to say is,
21 what schematic design do we want to look at?
22 I think it would be more cost effective if the
23 community wants to do the renovations on the natatorium,
24 they are still going to need those schematic designs.
25 If the legislature decides that that's something they
132
1 want to do, we'll still need that same schematic
2 design.
3 I would suggest at this point if we went with
4 option number 5 and had -- at least had the design work
5 there, we can make the policy decision between now and
6 the end of the legislative session. And if we decide
7 not to fund, the plan will be there. If the community
8 wants to pick up that ball and run with it, then they
9 will have what's necessary and they won't have to
10 backtrack to try to add it later.
11 SENATOR CATHCART: Mr. Chairman, I do
12 have a question.
13 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Okay. I see it
14 coming. I knew I could see it coming. Go ahead.
15 SENATOR CATHCART: I just wasn't smart
16 enough to think it up quick, as some point out.
17 Now, Senator Harris is talking about schematic
18 design and that's all we're talking about today is
19 approving the funds to develop the schematic design.
20 Right?
21 So, when you talk with renovation, let's say a
22 natatorium/auditorium, the cost of that portion of the
23 schematic design is, I would assume, fairly minimal.
24 Would that be accurate, Mr. Cromwell?
25 MR. CROMWELL: I prefer to let the
133
1 district architect speak to that, if he cares to.
2 SENATOR CATHCART: Does somebody have
3 the answer?
4 MR. ROSTRON: I couldn't hear -- I
5 couldn't hear what he said. You're asking -- yes, the
6 remodel would be much less than you're talking about,
7 Senator, Representative, with regards to the looking at
8 the pool and the natatorium. We just need to define a
9 further definition of what is there, because that is an
10 existing structure. Of the $280,000, the amount of --
11 more money is going to be spent on the new facility. No
12 question about it.
13 SENATOR CATHCART: Well, Mr. Chairman.
14 I'm sort of inclined to go with -- personally
15 go with option number 5, however, minus the amount of
16 money for the renovation on the natatorium/auditorium,
17 and then if there is an amount that we could contribute
18 that's equivalent to the 25 square feet that's normally
19 allowed for assembly space, I could see that being
20 allowed for a portion of the renovation on the
21 auditorium.
22 So, that's where I'm at. I don't know how to
23 cut that out. If it's a very minimal amount of money in
24 the schematic and approving that, I could support that,
25 but I don't know what I'm voting on.
134
1 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Mr. Cochair.
2 SENATOR GRANT: Well, we're not voting
3 on anything yet.
4 SENATOR CATHCART: I'm certainly not.
5 SENATOR GRANT: To me, I think I'm
6 trying to get at the same area that you are.
7 If we were to approve the two eighty and so
8 on, could we -- for this schematic and so on, if we were
9 to approve number 5, would there be money left to get
10 into the renovation of the auditorium/natatorium? Could
11 you as a board withhold some of that till we saw what
12 the results were of the redo of the school on number 5
13 and how your community felt relative to the possible gym
14 enhancement and some of the other things before we
15 tackle the renovation of the auditorium/natatorium
16 portion? Is that -- without us having to come back and
17 then approve more money to go back and do. Is that a
18 possibility in your mind?
19 MR. BLEVINS: We believe so, yes.
20 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative
21 Burns.
22 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Mr. Chairman.
23 I think Senator Harris is exactly right. The
24 schematics -- the schematic design has -- is not
25 necessary to figure out who is paying for what. You
135
1 need the schematic design regardless of who pays for
2 what.
3 So I think he's exactly right. The question
4 in my mind is what option this committee is going to
5 vote on, whether it be 5, which is what MGT
6 recommended. I'm partial to 3. I'm partial for
7 renovating the existing facilities, for them to be able
8 to maintain the facilities they have, maintain the
9 square footage they have.
10 I think that behooves them or benefits them
11 more. That's my own personal opinion. I would like to
12 hear that debated a bit more.
13 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: And I think
14 that's a fundamental question. And I want to clarify
15 that. To me, that is -- there is some fundamental
16 questions here that we have to answer. And before we
17 release money, we basically have to -- we have to decide
18 where we're going with the schematic design, and that
19 is -- that's a fundamental question here, where we want
20 them to go with a schematic design. And it is -- I
21 mean, we have got six choices. I think number 1 is
22 eliminated.
23 Okay. Number 1 is probably not going to get
24 many votes. But we have got five left. And I think the
25 off-site whole new campus has been pretty much agreed
136
1 that that's not going to be the way they go. So we have
2 four left. And it appears to be the choices between 3,
3 5 and 6. The district talked about 5, but they would
4 prefer 6. That's kind of what I heard.
5 Am I mistaken in summarizing that?
6 MR. SHOCKLEY: That's correct.
7 MR. BLEVINS: That's correct.
8 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Dodds?
9 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
10 And this goes back to where we had the earlier
11 discussion on Sheridan. I would really like the
12 committee to consider 5 and 6 the same recommendation.
13 We have prepared -- and I probably misworded this. I
14 apologize. We prepared the cost estimates to show the
15 impact of where you would be midrange and where you
16 would be at the top of the range. But essentially
17 that's the same approach to remedying the inadequacy.
18 Where the final design ends up will be, you know, a
19 product of the design of the building and the particular
20 spaces that end up in there. But since we aren't right
21 now approving a specific building design or a specific
22 building budget, I really would like the committee to
23 think of 5 and 6 as just one approach and not get too
24 concerned about the exact size allocation given per
25 student.
137
1 So I think you really have two viable
2 candidates. One is to renovate what's there or to build
3 new on the existing site.
4 SENATOR ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman?
5 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Senator
6 Anderson.
7 SENATOR ANDERSON: Thank you.
8 Mr. Shockley, I would like to ask you a
9 question. And given your position as superintendent
10 being the local paid expert, you have made quite a plea
11 in regard to what's best for kids. You made quite a
12 statement in regard to, you know, that ultimate
13 outcome. And having known a little how you think in a
14 previous life, which is most desirable to you, to have a
15 renovated facility with the additional space that it
16 might provide, or would you rather have a completely new
17 facility with somewhat less space and the flexibility
18 and options that provides?
19 If you were given that choice in a perfect
20 world, which one would you take?
21 MR. SHOCKLEY: Representative Baker.
22 Senator Anderson. I need to answer that in
23 two different ways.
24 First of all, under the best of all worlds, we
25 would not dislodge or disrupt students' educational
138
1 process in the flow of bringing about the enhanced
2 facilities.
3 If we remodel, we are going to disrupt
4 educational opportunities for kids for an extended
5 period of time, in my judgment, because you're not going
6 to be operating and remodeling on weekends, and even
7 during the 72-day summer session, you're not going to
8 get much done there.
9 So we are going to have to dislodge kids,
10 bring portables in in some way, move them away from the
11 construction site in order to remodel. I have a concern
12 on that and what that does for kids. I have lived
13 modulars, as you said, in a former life quite
14 extensively.
15 The other part of that answer is, if I heard
16 the discussion correctly, under remodel, I'm hearing
17 that we would need to back out the auditorium or a
18 portion the auditorium, a portion of the natatorium that
19 we may or may not have unless we enhance, and I also
20 heard the question come up and I was sitting here hoping
21 it wouldn't come, but if a gym is a -- if the added
22 space of an auditorium is an enhancement, ultimately is
23 the rest of the legislature going to say the enhancement
24 of the additional gym space is an enhancement?
25 I don't know if you could answer that. In
139
1 probably January is when we would have that answer.
2 So, Mr. Anderson, to come back, my desire
3 would be to disrupt the educational process for kids as
4 little as possible. I think we can do that by the new
5 high school on the site of where the gyms are at the
6 present.
7 SENATOR ANDERSON: One quick follow-up.
8 The facility that we're talking about now is
9 40 years old. The facility that we're going to build or
10 renovate is going to be here 40 years from now, long
11 after you're gone, long after I'm gone.
12 I want to take it beyond what might be
13 problematic for you as an administrator in order to get
14 through this process, but take it 20 years down the road
15 after you're gone and after I'm gone. What is the best
16 facility for the future education of the people and the
17 children of this community? Which of these two
18 facilities -- in your opinion, facilities is going to be
19 best for the community in the long term?
20 MR. SHOCKLEY: I would believe it to be
21 construction of the new because the instructional
22 processes have changed substantially in the last twenty
23 years, forty years, even in the last ten years. So
24 we're moving to spaces that need to be designed that
25 will allow for greater lab work, allow for more hands-on
140
1 type activities and so on that the current four-wall
2 structures do not accommodate. And I believe
3 professionally, in the long haul, forty, fifty years,
4 that the redesigned, reconfigured new space will be in
5 the best interest.
6 SENATOR ANDERSON: Thank you.
7 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative
8 Burns.
9 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Mr. Chairman.
10 Just a proviso. I'm afraid the natatorium, a
11 portion of the -- of the auditorium and the two gyms may
12 be enhancement under either option. I'm hoping I'm
13 wrong, but I think if it's going to be -- if it's going
14 to be enhancement under one, it's going to be
15 enhancement under either.
16 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: I would take that
17 to be true myself.
18 Further questions?
19 (No response.)
20 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: You want to
21 consider this, sleep on it? What do you want to do,
22 folks?
23 Members of the committee, I have heard some
24 consternation within the committee that some people were
25 not prepared to vote. So want to think about this a
141
1 while?
2 How would you like to proceed?
3 We can sure --
4 SENATOR CATHCART: Mr. Chairman, can we
5 come back to this tomorrow morning and go on with the
6 rest of our business?
7 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: We certainly
8 can.
9 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Mr. Chairman?
10 I don't know how open this meeting is. Can we
11 hear from any other witnesses that may want to -- from
12 the community that may want to address one option or the
13 other?
14 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: The cochairs had
15 talked about that. We had discussed some of the
16 problems that we had previously. We had told the board
17 that there would not be -- and the press that there
18 would not be public testimony taken and that would be as
19 we work later in the process.
20 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Okay.
21 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: And so, to be
22 fair, I think that we're probably going to have to take
23 that stance, at least -- Mr. Cochair, you talked to the
24 press about that, did you not?
25 SENATOR LARSON: Yeah. Our intention --
142
1 in other words, I think you all know that this was to be
2 a working meeting. It was not to be a public hearing.
3 If we're going to do a public hearing, I think it's
4 necessary that we advertise it as such and invite all of
5 the people who wish to come to come to it.
6 It is not a public hearing. I'm not going to
7 say there shouldn't be one or there won't be one, as we
8 have done in several other cases. But this was to be a
9 working meeting between our staff and the parties that
10 were presenting all of the areas there.
11 Quite frankly, if -- depending on what the
12 chairman says, I wouldn't object to hearing from
13 somebody. The only problem is we have told and it was
14 in the paper that it was not going to be a public
15 hearing. I hate at this point in time now to open it
16 up, because then you're going to have people say, "Well,
17 you told us it wasn't and now you heard from people who
18 just happened to be there." So that's the problem that
19 I have with it, not that we don't want to hear from
20 anybody.
21 For those of you that did not read the paper,
22 we did indicate that anyone wishing to communicate with
23 us, to please -- that we would certainly accept comments
24 in writing and were to do that. But I guess my
25 reluctance is that since we advertised it as not being a
143
1 public hearing and we were only going to take testimony
2 from both boards and administrations, that opening up at
3 this time would perhaps not be proper because some
4 people could say, "Well, we were told it wasn't and so
5 we didn't come."
6 REPRESENTATIVE SADLER: Mr. Chairman?
7 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative
8 Sadler.
9 REPRESENTATIVE SADLER: Reflecting back
10 on February 2nd, a vote I missed because I was home on
11 that last day of the session when the two schools in
12 Casper were killed, pretty well killed, I got home and I
13 found out that the opinions we were getting from the
14 school board in the hearings that we held in January in
15 Cheyenne were not necessarily the opinions of those
16 people that lived in that school district.
17 After that thing was killed, I attended three
18 different -- I think it was three different meetings in
19 Casper taking input from the people that go to those
20 schools and their parents and the people that had went
21 to those schools, ten, fifteen, fifty years ago. And
22 the consensus we were given to believe from the school
23 board was, yes, we're going to rebuild these schools and
24 have a new presidents school. This is what the public
25 wanted.
144
1 It wasn't what the public wanted. And I
2 certainly found that out afterwards. And I'm glad I
3 wasn't there on February 2nd because I would have
4 probably voted for it.
5 When it come up on the floor after attending
6 some of those meetings in Casper, I voted against it and
7 argued against the presidents school, as you might
8 recall, much to the consternation of my school board but
9 with a hell of a lot of pats on the back from the people
10 that lived in that school district.
11 If we're going to start spending 20 million
12 dollars on a school, I would certainly like to have some
13 input from other people in the area rather than just a
14 board or a principal or a superintendent, et cetera,
15 somewhere down the line, but understand that that should
16 not be done today.
17 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: And
18 Representative Sadler, that is going to occur and it
19 will be advertised in both the Sheridan and the Powell
20 area. You know, we're going to make sure that the
21 people are aware of that.
22 When we get to the public input time, you will
23 know and it will be advertised, and you also as boards
24 and administrators will certainly be allowed to
25 participate in that. But there will be public input
145
1 before the decisions to release whatever amount is to be
2 released. There will be public input.
3 It is unfortunate that we're here and not able
4 to take some of that testimony, but it is -- that's the
5 way it was advertised. And for fairness, I think we
6 need to stick with that just for those who may have
7 wanted to show up on all sides with their concerns. And
8 I'm not saying that there is one side and another. I
9 think there is people with several concerns about
10 several areas in their schools and there should be.
11 Mr. Cochair.
12 SENATOR GRANT: Just to further clarify
13 that, there is a decided difference between what we're
14 doing now and will be doing now or in the morning, as
15 the case may be, and what we were doing at that time.
16 We were making final decisions on dollar allocations of
17 what was to be built, what was not to be built.
18 What we're doing now is the release of funds
19 to get into the design phase. It is very possible that
20 when this design phase comes out and goes through all of
21 the processes that it has to go through, there will be
22 many changes, I would suspect, because that has been the
23 history of the past.
24 So what we're doing here is trying to release
25 money for the design phase with a, as Mr. Cromwell said,
146
1 suggested method of going through. That's why he said 5
2 and 6 are virtually the same as we talked about the 135
3 square feet for Sheridan and here we're talking about
4 one going up to 180. But the design phase and the value
5 engineering will determine that. And before those funds
6 are released, I'm sure we will be hearing from many of
7 you. But all this is is release of money to start the
8 process.
9 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative
10 Sadler.
11 REPRESENTATIVE SADLER: Mr. Chairman.
12 I understand that's the process we're in. The
13 reason I made those comments is I'm not sure I even want
14 to release that money at this time.
15 SENATOR CATHCART: Mr. Chairman.
16 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Senator
17 Cathcart.
18 SENATOR CATHCART: Mr. Chairman.
19 When I look at this, and after the tour this
20 morning, frankly, the school looked like a building that
21 was in very good condition for its age, and as far as I
22 was concerned, it looked like it had a lot of usable
23 life left.
24 So when I look at option 3, renovation, that
25 makes some sense to me. But when I look at the cost of
147
1 23 million versus 21 million, it appears to be a lot
2 less money to just build new. It's about two million
3 less.
4 So, that's where I'm stuck. I hate to vote on
5 option 5 if that means we're going to tear down existing
6 when it seems like a perfectly good building to me. But
7 on the other hand, there is obviously a difference in
8 the schematic design you're going to come up with. So
9 we have to make a choice, and that's basically the
10 choice we're going to be making, let's say, tomorrow
11 morning. Is that correct?
12 Do we need to have that debate on whether or
13 not to renovate or build new? That's where I'm stuck.
14 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Yes, members of
15 the committee, that is the debate that we need to have.
16 Dodds.
17 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
18 I don't want to sound like I'm trying to push
19 the committee to make any decision before they are
20 absolutely ready to. I just would like to remind the
21 committee that even making the decision tomorrow to
22 begin the design phase is a very, very aggressive pace
23 to get the schematic design done by -- I think we have
24 looked at October 15th, so they can be reviewed, value
25 engineered, da-da-da-da-da. We can have a final design
148
1 recommendation by December 1.
2 It's very aggressive. I just want to remind
3 the committee of that.
4 SENATOR CATHCART: Mr. Chairman.
5 You're not suggesting it makes any difference
6 if we decide tonight or in the morning, though. Okay.
7 MR. CROMWELL: Well, I don't know.
8 SENATOR HARRIS: Your office is still
9 open.
10 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative
11 Burns.
12 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Mr. Chairman.
13 On Senator Cathcart's point about the dollar
14 difference, if we go back -- and Mr. Chairman, you have
15 said you agree with me that the renovation of the two
16 gyms is an enhancement that the community would have to
17 shoulder or probably would have to shoulder. It
18 becomes -- these figures are not accurate because the
19 option 5 also has to include the local community and
20 their local enhancement for building a new gym complex
21 which Mr. Blevins said that's their plan to do.
22 So, they are going to be paying -- it's going
23 to be a local enhancement either way, whether they
24 renovate that gym or, you know, bond to build that gym.
25 Bonding to build that gym is not included in option 5,
149
1 but the renovation is included in option, three, which
2 would probably have to be backed out of there. So I
3 think you're probably talking probably the same dollars,
4 maybe even less.
5 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Well, let's look
6 at the spreadsheet. The spreadsheet shows, and we're
7 talking about option 3, as you go over to building cost
8 and we have got -- the third figure down is 14.9 million
9 dollars and the buildings down below that are somewhere
10 around 8, 8.7 on option 5 and 6. But you look over in
11 miscellaneous and there is a significant like four and a
12 half million-dollar difference in miscellaneous, and if
13 you look at the footnote 16, that shows that the
14 difference between option 3, the renovation, you have
15 moved the renovation of that auditorium-natatorium over
16 into miscellaneous rather than in the building costs
17 where it is in option 3.
18 So, the figure that MGT has given us of around
19 five million bucks is capsulated, if you will, in the
20 difference between 14.9 million dollars in building cost
21 up here. You subtract out that five million bucks,
22 you're down to around somewhere around nine -- yeah,
23 nine million bucks, nine to ten million dollars for
24 renovation, and to build a new school is around eight.
25 There is still a difference in what I see here. And
150
1 correct me if I'm wrong. Am I misusing these figures.
2 Dodds?
3 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
4 No, you're interpreting the figures right. I
5 would just caution the committee to think of these as
6 budgeting and planning figures and these are not
7 detailed cost estimates based on specific designs of
8 buildings. Okay? So they were developed kind of using
9 cost-per-square-foot allocations, which is the best we
10 can do. And I think they represent real-life
11 situations, but they are not exact.
12 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Yeah. We're not
13 down to the point of talking about whether we release
14 nine million dollars or eight million dollars to build
15 new or ten million to renovate. What you're saying is
16 those are ballparks.
17 SENATOR HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, just
18 think of it as a CREG report.
19 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: A CREG report?
20 I would like to review -- before I would vote,
21 members of the committee, I would like to review the
22 handout that was given to us this morning and the
23 figures that are in that handout, because that shows
24 me -- and I left mine in my car so I keep stealing Mr.
25 Cochair's -- that shows me a building-by-building cost
151
1 of asbestos removal, of renovation, of education
2 deficiencies, of all the kind of things that --
3 renovation of the air-handling facilities, but they are
4 all broken out.
5 I would like -- as far as I'm concerned, I
6 would like to look at that a little bit more completely
7 before I decide what I would like to do.
8 Members of the committee, is there any
9 objection to putting this off until tomorrow morning so
10 we have some time to consider this?
11 Senator Anderson.
12 SENATOR ANDERSON: No objection. But a
13 question of perhaps staff or the two cochairs. An
14 appropriate motion would then be one that would
15 distinguish between renovation and remodeling? Is that
16 correct?
17 I mean, it would have to be distinct between
18 whether we're going to remodel the classroom building or
19 whether we're going to rebuild. And then when we -- and
20 within that motion, then, would it be appropriate or
21 necessary to articulate how any of these things might be
22 broken out in terms of payment over time?
23 Does that -- in other words, once we get past,
24 you know, how it's going to be -- you know, what's going
25 to be done, we don't necessarily at this point in our
152
1 motion have to include whether it might be a local
2 enhancement or make the decision as to how the payment
3 would be broken out.
4 I just keep going back to Senator Harris's
5 continued comment in regard to the purpose of this
6 committee at this point in time that maybe some of this
7 other debate can come later after the schematic as to
8 whether -- you know, legalities of enhancement, you
9 know, who pays for what portion of the natatorium and
10 that.
11 That discussion can come later and may not
12 necessarily need to be in a motion that's going to be
13 made in this meeting. Is that correct?
14 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: That's the way I
15 perceive it.
16 Mr. Cochair.
17 SENATOR GRANT: Mr. Chairman.
18 I clearly believe we're voting to release
19 planning dollars. I think our decision is going to be,
20 are those planning dollars going to be used for
21 remodeling or are they going to be used for a new
22 facility.
23 I think it's necessary that whoever is going
24 to do this has to have that kind of direction. I do not
25 believe that we're down to yet deciding whether or not
153
1 they will or will not be an enhancement, whether or not
2 the gyms, if they remodel that portion, is or is not an
3 enhancement.
4 I think those kind of decision, number one, is
5 I think we need further research, predominantly legal, I
6 would say. But I think that all we need to do when we
7 get a motion is decide whether we believe that it's best
8 to remodel or whether we believe it's best to begin the
9 planning process with new construction.
10 Either of those, I think, should include the
11 renovation, but I think we need to keep the costs broken
12 out, but the renovation of the natatorium/auditorium. I
13 don't believe those funds should include, however, the
14 enhancement of an additional gym outside of that that
15 meets state criteria. I think that's something that if
16 the community decides they want to do that, that is
17 their responsibility.
18 I don't think even the planning dollars should
19 include that because that is outside of the parameters
20 that I think we have the authority to try to do. But I
21 sure don't think, and I agree with what you're saying,
22 that we need to at this point in time be making all of
23 the decisions relative to necessarily what we're going
24 to do with the renovation of the natatorium and the
25 auditorium.
154
1 I do think we have to give them a clear
2 direction of whether this committee believes by the
3 release of these funds they should proceed on a
4 renovation course or on a new building course. And I'm
5 going to say I think some time in time if the community
6 decides they really don't want to build a new one, then
7 I'm not sure where we go if we already made the decision
8 that you're going to go on the new course.
9 That's the problem I'm having and why I don't
10 want to vote on it tonight, because that gives me an
11 uncomfortable feeling of making the decision that, for
12 all practical purposes, appears to be in the same
13 ballpark, a couple million here or there, as Dirckson
14 said, pretty soon you're talking about real money, but
15 still a couple of million here or there. To make that
16 decision, I'm sure not prepared to do it right at this
17 minute as to what is in the best interest of the
18 community. And once we make that decision whether the
19 planning should go toward new or whether it should go
20 toward renovation, I think that's a point that's going
21 to be very difficult to turn back on.
22 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Okay. I hear a
23 consensus that we take this subject up in the morning.
24 Any objection to that consensus?
25 (No response.)
155
1 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: If not, that's
2 the way we'll proceed.
3 A review of tomorrow's work topics: Mr.
4 Cochair will be handling this. Wyoming Public TV will
5 have to be moved up. They requested that they have a
6 mid to late morning time period. The director -- new
7 director of the commission which we will meet tomorrow
8 has a flight that he has to catch, and he needs to be
9 out of here well before we get done. So he will be
10 moved up.
11 Any other discussions or anything about the
12 agenda that needs to be brought up at this time?
13 REPRESENTATIVE SADLER: Just one
14 question, Mr. Chair or Mr. Cochair: Should I check out
15 of my motel room in the morning or --
16 SENATOR GRANT: Yes.
17 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: You can check out
18 tonight if you want. We don't care. No. We expect to
19 be done reasonably early.
20 Discussion of these interim topics: We had
21 several requests for people that want -- not several but
22 at least some requests of people who wanted to show up,
23 talk about specific plans that they have for employee
24 benefits and those sort of things. And we rejected
25 those saying the committee doesn't know enough yet about
156
1 benefits. We need a basic understanding within the
2 committee before we start getting proposals about what
3 we should do to fix the system. We don't even
4 understand the system well enough to -- isn't that a
5 terrible admission?
6 I don't understand -- you guys might but I
7 don't understand the system well enough to really be
8 making motions and intelligent questions about what we
9 should do. And so, tomorrow, once we get through the
10 rest of the facilities things, we will be mostly
11 catching information about -- for the committee about
12 these subject areas that have been assigned to us for
13 interim problems to bring up our level of competence in
14 information technology and employee benefits than fire
15 suppression accounts and the options that may be
16 available for public TV in the future.
17 SENATOR CATHCART: Mr. Chairman.
18 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: We have got
19 several.
20 Okay. Representative Shivler.
21 REPRESENTATIVE SHIVLER: I just want to
22 make a statement based on about what we were talking
23 about a few minutes ago on the renovation versus new. I
24 think -- you know, if I were making the decision -- I'm
25 obviously not a member of this committee. But I think
157
1 the whole thing keys on the structural integrity of that
2 building, what it is. I mean, you know, cracked bricks
3 are anecdotal evidence. That doesn't mean the building
4 is failing in any way. It could be an expansion
5 problem. It could be a lot of different issues that --
6 issues that would cause it to crack.
7 So I don't know if the engineer is available.
8 Is the structural engineering available? I mean, if the
9 building is structurally sound, that would make a big
10 difference on whether you would remodel or whether you
11 would tear it down, do something new. I don't even know
12 if that's available.
13 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: That's a
14 question. I mean, we -- today we couldn't go out and
15 hire somebody -- we don't have the legislative authority
16 to go out and spend money to hire somebody to do an
17 in-depth study and probably not the time to do that.
18 What kind of information is available as far
19 as real testing on the structure? Has there been any
20 done?
21 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
22 I'm not sure to the extent that any testing
23 was done. I don't believe there has been a detailed
24 structural analysis done of the building, but I'll defer
25 to the district to answer that. But I would also just
158
1 like to add to that that no one -- I don't think anyone
2 is saying that the building is structurally unsound, but
3 what they are saying is there is going to be substantial
4 cost involved in bringing it up to seismic code and
5 remedying the problems that are there that probably are
6 related to expansion and contraction and a lack of
7 control joints and those kind of issues. But the
8 engineer -- one of the structural engineers is here. He
9 may be able to speak more specifically to it.
10 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Have there
11 been -- structural engineers? What kind of testing
12 would be done?
13 MR. POPE: Well, we did take a look at
14 it, went to drawings, and we didn't do a detailed
15 analysis, but we sort of identified problem areas, maybe
16 the brick and, you know, expansion problems with the
17 brick, lack of control joints.
18 As far as the seismic, it was just built, you
19 know, 30 years ago before the seismic code was
20 stringent. So it just doesn't meet the current UBC
21 criteria. But, you know, from a gravity standpoint, I
22 think it's a sound building. You know, we're not saying
23 it's unsafe or anything like that. It's just it doesn't
24 meet the current seismic codes or the problem with the
25 expansion of the brick.
159
1 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative
2 Reese.
3 REPRESENTATIVE REESE: Mr. Chairman,
4 just a thought: If we were to find out that that
5 building is structurally sound and it needs to be taken
6 care of, renovation, is that something that could be
7 done over a period of summers so that you don't disrupt
8 the classroom during the school year? Is that possible
9 to do it over --
10 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Well, for one
11 thing, by court mandate, we need to get the building out
12 of the immediate need.
13 Now, that doesn't mean it has to go to a 90,
14 but we would have to raise the score fairly
15 immediately. I would say -- and am I incorrect on
16 that? We have to address the immediate need as a
17 minimum.
18 So we would have to get the building out of
19 the 34 to at least well above 50, I would assume, in the
20 first step, and then -- that's an interesting
21 possibility to take it a step at a time and consider
22 that.
23 Dodds?
24 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
25 When we first started thinking about the idea
160
1 of renovating that building, that was one of our first
2 approaches, that it doesn't have to be renovated all at
3 once, you could do some major projects each summer and
4 minimize the disruption and over three or four years get
5 it all accomplished. But the reason we kind of backed
6 off of that is because of the cost comparisons. Really
7 wasn't saving us a lot of money and we were ending up
8 with a renovated 40-year-old building. So -- but I
9 think that's a good point.
10 If the district -- I mean, if the solution was
11 to renovate it, it would not have to be all at the same
12 time. There would probably still be some disruption,
13 but it doesn't mean you would have to close down the
14 building necessarily. It would take some thought to do
15 that.
16 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: As an example. A
17 heating and air-conditioning problem could be taken care
18 of maybe in one summer and ventilation. And then the
19 brick spalling the next summer or structural. I mean,
20 that is a possibility. Because of price, you rejected
21 that as far as your recommendation.
22 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
23 Yeah. We just didn't feel like we were
24 getting enough good out of it to go through that.
25 Can I ask? May I make one suggestion? I
161
1 don't know if this is possible or not. But is it a
2 possibility that the committee could release planning
3 dollars for either renovation or a new building and let
4 the district go forth on either one or -- either one of
5 those alternatives and let them do some internal talking
6 with their community and whatnot, decide what's best and
7 come back in October with the schematic design for one
8 or the other, since it does not appear that the
9 committee has a strong opinion, we don't have a strong
10 opinion which is the best solution, leave that up to the
11 community? You just make that suggestion.
12 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Senator Harris,
13 do you have --
14 SENATOR HARRIS: It's not on this
15 subject. It's on other committee work. So if we have
16 more on --
17 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: I'm sorry.
18 Representative Reese, did I cut you off?
19 REPRESENTATIVE REESE: No, you didn't.
20 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative
21 Sadler.
22 REPRESENTATIVE SADLER: Since this
23 building was built before the seismic codes were adopted
24 in the state of Wyoming and that building is there, if
25 it's renovated, does it necessarily have to be brought
162
1 up to that seismic standard?
2 SENATOR GRANT: Yes.
3 MR. CROMWELL: Mr. Chairman.
4 That's up to the local building official as to
5 what standard he would bring it up. But I don't think
6 there is an engineer or probably a politician in the
7 room that wants to stand up and spend millions of
8 dollars on a building and not bring it up to code. I
9 think that would be a grave mistake.
10 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Mr. Cochair.
11 SENATOR GRANT: I think that's something
12 that we need to think about because I think we can
13 release that planning money any way we want to release
14 it. So I think that is an option for the committee to
15 think about.
16 And then one further.
17 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Yes.
18 SENATOR GRANT: If you look at our
19 topics for tomorrow, I think the community should know
20 that it is my opinion that that topic number 1 is going
21 to take extensive committee work. And so, though we're
22 not -- haven't gotten that much into gear now because
23 they have been putting together information from us and
24 tomorrow won't necessarily be that long because we have
25 got some reports here that we have to digest and have
163
1 information presented, et cetera, but I think that that
2 topic number 1 is going to be a nitty-gritty that we're
3 going to have to spend a lot of time for committee
4 work.
5 Tomorrow we will make some decisions relative
6 to what our schedules are going to be and how much we're
7 going to have to go and so on.
8 SENATOR HARRIS: And Mr. Chairman, that
9 goes to my question. How many more meetings were the
10 chairs planning on having? We're going to have public
11 hearings on the Powell and Sheridan projects. I assume
12 that would be at least one. Maybe we need to have
13 possibly two if we're going to go to both communities.
14 How many days were we authorized and how many days do
15 the chairs plan to use?
16 SENATOR GRANT: I think we're authorized
17 about whatever we need, but I don't know. I think the
18 reason I was bringing that up is we have got several of
19 these. We have talked about the public hearing thing
20 and the chairs are going to have to get together and try
21 to figure that out, Mark.
22 I don't know at this time. But I was bringing
23 that up because I think that's going to require some
24 time, and we're going to obviously have to come back in
25 October also after the release of whatever comes up here
164
1 to enable that authorization to go ahead.
2 We haven't done much so far. I think we're
3 going to be a little more busy.
4 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: The two
5 mandatory -- well, two committee meetings that we're
6 probably going to have to have in probably October and
7 then, of course, in December to receive the governor's
8 rec. again, we do have to, remember, come up with
9 recommendations as far as inflation adjustment, cost-
10 of-living index for schools before session. That is
11 going to take a little while.
12 So, we have got some committee work that is
13 going to take us some time. We'll be seeing more of
14 each other than we have up to this point.
15 SENATOR LARSON: Mr. Chairman?
16 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Yes. Mr.
17 Cochair.
18 SENATOR GRANT: It's the intention of
19 the chairs since neither of us have an election opponent
20 to have all the meetings before the general election.
21 SENATOR HARRIS: I'll second that.
22 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Keep me from
23 being here next January.
24 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative
25 Burns.
165
1 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Mr. Chairman.
2 Two questions: One is, I thought also that this
3 committee was going to be touring state facilities.
4 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Oops.
5 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Which calls for
6 quite a number of meetings.
7 SENATOR HARRIS: Mr. Chairman. I did
8 talk to some people about going to the seed lab. There
9 is one.
10 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: You're going to
11 go see the seed lab tonight.
12 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: The other
13 question I had is, I am -- and I think other people have
14 stated on this committee also, have already stated it.
15 We have got a fundamental decision between basically 3
16 and 5, between renovating and building a new high
17 school. And I'm really hesitant to take a vote on the
18 determination that actually should be the decision of
19 the people of Powell, of this school district. And I
20 love Mr. Cromwell's suggestion that we release the
21 money, let them decide however they want to decide, go
22 ahead with the schematic that way, because I don't know
23 that I'm going to be any more prepared tomorrow morning
24 to make this decision on their behalf than I am now. I
25 think it's a decision for them to make. I think the
166
1 dollars to be spent are close enough. Let them
2 determine their own fate.
3 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative
4 Sadler.
5 REPRESENTATIVE SADLER: Getting back to
6 the additional meetings that we may have, the management
7 council this past year has not turned down any request
8 from any chairman for additional funds.
9 SENATOR GRANT: Which is why I said --
10 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Senator
11 Cathcart.
12 SENATOR CATHCART: Mr. Chairman.
13 On a couple other issues: We all got the
14 B-11, and I go through these B-11s, I find one where DEQ
15 got market adjustment money which they didn't spend and
16 they reverted those general funds into other
17 expenditures through the B-11. And I understood the
18 legislation when we passed those dollars for market
19 adjustments to salaries for state employees. That's
20 what that money was expended for. And I don't
21 understand how they can B-11 salary money into other
22 agency expenditures.
23 That's one complaint. I hope we can address
24 that at a later time. Maybe our staff can get us more
25 information on that.
167
1 The other one, Mr. Chairman: We all get this
2 report. It has to deal with no net new program, et
3 cetera. There was a bill last year, I think Reese
4 Hinchey bill, to repeal that. Nothing ever comes of
5 that report.
6 This is this year's. I see four new
7 programs. The governor may agree or may not agree with
8 the management council, and we get in a big standoff
9 over what's new and what isn't new.
10 Basically, nothing ever comes of that, except
11 that we have a huge burden on our staff to come up with
12 all of these reports and file this stuff. And it seems
13 to me that this committee at least may want to discuss a
14 committee bill to repeal that. That is a dumb idea.
15 REPRESENTATIVE SADLER: Mr. Chairman?
16 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Representative
17 Sadler?
18 REPRESENTATIVE SADLER: I believe the
19 management council got a letter in reference to that
20 saying that if the governor did not object, then those
21 are in fact new programs that this legislature will have
22 to deal with next session and eliminate four programs.
23 SENATOR CATHCART: That's right.
24 REPRESENTATIVE SADLER: That's my
25 understanding.
168
1 SENATOR GRANT: That is correct. That
2 is correct.
3 SENATOR CATHCART: That ain't going to
4 happen.
5 REPRESENTATIVE SADLER: It's never got
6 that far.
7 SENATOR GRANT: And it won't this time.
8 SENATOR CATHCART: Mr. Chairman, that's
9 exactly my point.
10 We have statutory language that requires us to
11 jump through all these hoops over new programs. There
12 is going to be new programs as long as there is a
13 legislature. But now we have statutory language
14 requiring somebody to jump through a lot of hoops and
15 we're ignoring it.
16 SENATOR GRANT: No.
17 SENATOR CATHCART: It just -- we're not
18 ignoring it. We're doing a lot of work, but --
19 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: We are becoming a
20 little built --
21 SENATOR GRANT: We are supposed to next
22 legislative session eliminate four programs. We're not
23 ignoring it. Whether it happens is something else, but
24 that will be brought up.
25 SENATOR CATHCART: You know that isn't
169
1 going to happen.
2 SENATOR GRANT: Yes, I do.
3 REPRESENTATIVE SADLER: Mr. Chairman?
4 Mr. Chairman?
5 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: We can talk about
6 this tomorrow.
7 REPRESENTATIVE SADLER: I think before
8 when this issue come up, the governor always objected to
9 our designations that those were new programs. So,
10 therefore, we couldn't do anything. He did not disagree
11 this time. So I think the legislature is bound to do
12 something according to the statute. Whether they will
13 or not, I don't know. I suppose that depends on the
14 floor leader and the president or whatever.
15 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: It does.
16 Okay. Anything else?
17 (No response.)
18 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: If not, we will
19 break, but I will tell you one thing. I have three
20 seats for those who do not know where Byron is in my
21 car. It's actually down 14-A.
22 REPRESENTATIVE BURNS: Oh. That's what
23 screwed me up.
24 SENATOR GRANT: Mr. Chairman?
25 Mr. Chairman, I just want anybody in the
170
1 audience to know that we're not taking public
2 testimony. I'm going to hang around a little while, and
3 maybe others will. If you want to talk to me, I'll be
4 glad to listen.
5 REPRESENTATIVE BAKER: Thank you.
6 Appreciate it.
7 (Hearing proceedings recessed 4:32 p.m.,
8 July 9, 2002.)
9 END OF VOLUME I
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25