Committee Meeting Information

September 25, 2007

University of Wyoming Outreach Building

Casper, Wyoming

 

Committee Members Present

Senator Jim Anderson, Chairman

Senator Hank Coe

Senator John Hines

Senator Mike Massie

Senator Kathryn Sessions

Representative Ross Diercks

Representative Patrick Goggles

Representative Mike Madden

Representative Del McOmie

Representative Kevin White

 

Legislative Service Office Staff

Dave Nelson, School Finance Manager, Brenda Long, School Finance Analyst

Matthew Sackett, Research Analyst, Josh Anderson, Research Associate

 

Others Present at Meeting

Please refer to Appendix 1 to review the Committee Sign-in Sheet
for a list of other individuals who attended the meeting.

Call To Order

Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order at 8:30 AM.  The following sections summarize the Committee proceedings by topic.  Please refer to Appendix 2 to review the Committee Meeting Agenda.

 

School Facilities Commission Process Component Review

Mr. Ken Daraie, Director of the School Facilities Commission addressed the Committee concerning the school facility process as it relates to construction process and major maintenance.  Mr. Daraie provided a handout to the Committee (see Appendix 3 for a copy of the handout).  Mr. Daraie stated that they had developed a process to connect priorities across district boundaries.  He noted that the commission had developed the process with the idea that the appropriations were meant to be distributed efficiently and prudently and that the commission would not question previous decisions regarding the distribution of funds.  Mr. Daraie noted that they had made major maintenance and capital construction funding a collaborative process between all school districts and the school facilities commission.  Mr. Daraie also noted that routine maintenance was left as is and would be discussed through the department of education.

 

Mr. Daraie then addressed the Committee concerning the prioritization process.  He provided a handout to the Committee (see Appendix 4 for a copy of the handout).  Mr. Daraie noted that while the total request was $600,000,000 there was no established method of deciding which project would be first.  The commission had to develop some way of prioritizing and developed a three step process.  The first step was a condition assessment where there was an evaluation of all of the buildings and a score was given for every facility.  In response to a question Mr. Daraie said that the evaluation process is focused on consistency, reliability and repeatability.  The second step was to determine the building capacity with an allowanced for small schools.  The third step was to consider the educational suitability of the facility.  Mr. Daraie noted that this step was more subjective and less reliable that the other steps and that the tool used to determine suitability is proprietary and could not be evaluated.  Mr. Daraie noted that this step was weighted the least but that it is not without merit and should be included.  Mr. Daraie noted that in the future they could develop their own matrix and that this step would likely eventually play a bigger role.  He stated that the goal was to make the process as objective as possible.  He stated that the steps are currently weighted as follows, condition 50%, capacity 40% and suitability 10%.  The results of the steps provide a rational, data-driven transparent list from 1 to 380.

 

Mr. Daraie next addressed the Committee regarding design guidelines.  He provided a handout to the Committee (see Appendix 5 for a copy of the handout).  Mr. Daraie noted that as a citizen of the state he wanted every dollar to be as productive as possible.  Mr. Daraie noted that while buildings do not teach they can facilitate education and make it easier.  He stated that while square footage has a direct relation to cost it was also necessary to look at the purpose and function of the facilities.  He noted that the commission developed a set of questions and stated that all perspectives should be involved in the process.  Mr. Daraie noted that flexibility was a theme they discussed in the development of the guidelines since they were attempting to design without a clear picture of how education will look in 10 to 15 years.  In response to a question, Mr. Daraie stated that they do try to design for flexibility in school capacity and that they consider property size and layout for ease of expansion, he also noted that designing a facility for the ability to accommodate a smaller capacity is more challenging but is also considered.  In response to a question, Mr. Daraie noted that while the commission is not at the point of preventing fires rather than fighting fires, it is almost there and he suggested that the request will likely be reduced in future bienniums.  He noted that the commission had eliminated the concept of minor capital construction in order to simplify the process.  Mr. Daraie also noted that preparedness was a consideration of the commission and that they would not allocate money for projects that are further away when there are others that are ready to go.  For maintenance, Mr. Daraie noted that there are approximately 22 million square feet of facilities and that there are well accepted processes of managing that magnitude of space.  He stated that it was likely that the state would need to invest approximately $110-120 million annually to that magnitude of space with construction projects if a 50 year replacement cycle and approximately $50-60 million for major maintenance in order to properly maintain and manage those facilities.

 

School Facilities Commission Budget Overview

Mr. Daraie addressed the Committee concerning the 2009-2010 budget request for the school facilities commission (see Appendix 6 for a copy of the budget request).

 

Mr. Mike O'Donnell, State's Counsel stated that in regard to the budget footnote (see Appendix 7 for a copy of the footnote) the Committee may want to consider some type of statutory change in the future, but until the commission has developed the program it would be appropriate to bring forward the footnote.

 

Mr. Daraie noted that major maintenance is impacted by the number of square feet and inflation and stated that major maintenance will likely grow over time.  He also stated that for the capital construction component of the request the commission arrived at the figure by looking at the ability to efficiently deploy dollars including the capacity of contractors to handle the construction.  The $388 million request was the limit for what could be efficiently spent and then the commission will see how far they can get down the list.  In response to a question Mr. Daraie noted that if they receive less that the requested amount it will mean that they will not be able to get as far down the priority list.

 

Mr. Daraie provided a handout to the Committee which contained proposed statutory changes from the school facilities commission (see Appendix 8 for a copy of the handout).  The Committee directed the LSO staff to prepare bill drafts of the suggested legislative changes for consideration by the Committee.

 

Next Meeting

Chairman Anderson set the next meeting for December 7, 2007 to be alongside the December Joint Education Committee meeting.

 

Meeting Adjournment

There being no further business, Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 11:35 AM.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Senator Jim Anderson, Chairman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix		Appendix Topic		Appendix Description		Appendix Provider
1		Committee Sign-In Sheet		Lists meeting attendees		Legislative Service Office
2		Committee Meeting Agenda		Provides an outline of the topics the Committee planned to address at meeting		Legislative Service Office
3		Major Maintenance and Capital Construction		IBS Session 1 – Major Maintenance and Capital Construction		School Facilities Commission
4		State Wide Prioritization		IBS Session 2 – State Wide Prioritization		School Facilities Commission
5		Design Guidelines		IBS Session 3 – Design Guidelines		School Facilities Commission
6		Budget Request		School Facilities Commission – Budget Request		School Facilities Commission
7		Budget Footnote		School Facilities Budget Footnote		School Facilities Commission
8		Proposed changes		Proposed legislative changes from the School Facilities Commission		School Facilities Commission