MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Education
Seventy-Second Session
February 26, 2003
The Committee on Educationwas called to order at 4:00 p.m., on Wednesday, February 26, 2003. Chairman Wendell P. Williams presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Chairman
Mr. Walter Andonov
Mrs. Sharron Angle
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mr. Jason Geddes
Mr. Joe Hardy
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Mr. Garn Mabey
Mr. Mark Manendo
Mr. Bob McCleary
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. William Horne (excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Carol Stonefield, Committee Policy Analyst
Linda Corbett, Committee Manager
Victoria Thompson, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Fred Smith, Construction Manager and Interim Assistant Superintendent for Facilities for the Clark County School District
Dr. Walt Rulffes, Deputy Superintendent and CFO, Clark County School District
Carolyn M. Staskiewicz, Project Director, Dejong and Associates
Joyce Haldeman, Executive Director of Community and Government Relations for the Clark County School District
Roll was called, and Chairman Williams requested that Assemblyman Horne be marked excused, as he was still in another Committee meeting.
Chairman Williams announced that there would be a presentation by the Clark County School District Pilot Program for the Replacement of Schools. He informed the new members of the Committee that A.B. 499 of the 71st Legislative Session was the bill that began the pilot program enabling one school to be replaced in Clark County, and that under A.B. 368 of the 70th Legislative Session, five schools were replaced in Clark County. The District also developed a policy for the replacement of older schools, which was directed by A.B. 499 of the 71st Legislative Session. He felt that, four years later, the District had worked well with the Legislature in developing and executing the pilot program. The presentation from the Clark County School District would update the Committee on the District’s progress and would give the Committee ways to improve or assist in the implementation of this program.
The first speaker was Mr. Fred Smith, who stated he was the Construction Manager and Interim Assistant Superintendent for Facilities for the Clark County School District. He introduced Dr. Walt Rulffes, Deputy Superintendent and CFO for the District, and Ms. Carolyn M. Staskiewicz of Dejong and Associates, which was a consulting firm that worked with the District to assemble Clark County School District’s master planning effort for the capital improvement program. Mr. Smith expressed his pleasure in giving the presentation (Exhibit C), which portrayed the current status of the Clark County School District’s School Replacement Program under A.B. 368 of the 70th Legislative Session and A.B. 499 of the 71st Legislative Session.
Mr. Smith detailed that A.B. 499 of the 71st Legislative Session authorized the Clark County School District to use $90 million of their capital improvement program, which was passed as A.B. 368 of the 70th Legislative Session, to replace five existing schools by July of 2005. The legislation also required the District to prepare an interim progress report, which was submitted to the Legislative Counsel Bureau earlier this month. He stated that today’s presentation summarized that interim report.
The first school replaced under the program, according to Mr. Smith, was Sunrise Acres Elementary School. Construction of the new school was completed in December of 2001, staff moved in over the 2001 holiday, and students reported for school in their new facility on January 21, 2002. The new facility was based on the District’s current single-story elementary school prototype, consisting of 62,500 square feet, and constructed on property north of the existing facility. The cost of construction was just under $10 million; with professional and technical fees, furnishings, equipment, books, telecommunications and technology, and management overhead, the total cost was slightly less than $14 million.
Mr. Smith related that the second school replaced under the District’s School Replacement Program was Madison Elementary School. Construction of the school was completed in August 2002, and the Board of School Trustees named the replacement school the “Wendell P. Williams Elementary School.” The Madison Elementary School staff, parents, and community participated in a series of meetings that culminated in a decision to create a custom design for the replacement facility. The result was the District’s first two-story elementary school, consisting of 72,000 square feet of new space, in addition to retaining the existing multi-purpose room, which was relatively new. The replacement facility was constructed on the southern portion of the existing Madison Elementary School site, while the existing facility continued to house the students and staff. When the students and staff moved into the new facility, the existing structures at Madison were demolished to make room for the replacement play fields. The cost for construction of the Wendell P. Williams Elementary School was slightly more than $11 million, and the total project cost was slightly more than $17 million.
Mr. Smith revealed that the third school to be replaced under the provisions of A.B. 499 of the 71st Legislative Session would be the Virgin Valley Elementary School in Mesquite. The contract for building the replacement school was awarded earlier this month, and construction was scheduled for completion in early 2004. As with the Sunrise Acres Elementary School, the new facility was based on the District’s current standard single-story elementary school prototype, but the construction would be on a new site several miles from the existing school. The cost of erecting this new facility was estimated to be $10 million, with the total project cost approximately $15 million.
Mr. Smith identified Booker Elementary School as the fourth replacement school under the provisions of A.B. 499 of the 71st Legislative Session. As with the Madison Elementary School, prior to the start of design, the Booker Elementary School staff, parents, and community met and decided to create a new custom design for that replacement facility. The Board of School Trustees for the Clark County School District would be asked to approve the selection of an architect to design the custom facility. The District staff would procure additional land adjacent to the existing school site that would be the site of the replacement facility. This school was programmed for completion by the summer of 2005 for the start of school in August 2005. As with Virgin Valley, the cost of construction was estimated to be about $10 million, with the total project cost roughly $15 million.
Mr. Smith summarized the status of the school replacement program after completion of the first four schools. He determined the total project for the four elementary schools as slightly over $61 million, which left a little over $28 million for the fifth school, based on the $90 million cap specified in A.B. 499 of the 71st Legislative Session. He said the remaining funds were sufficient for another elementary school, but slightly less than for a replacement middle school, and significantly less than the funding needed for a replacement high school.
The next school in the District’s list of priorities for replacement was Rancho High School, and Mr. Smith divulged that the Board of School Trustees voted to identify Rancho High School as the fifth replacement school, on the condition that the $90 million cap could be increased and the July 2005 deadline extended to accommodate the cost and the schedule for replacement. The preliminary plan was to construct the new high school prototype on the southern portion of the existing Rancho High School site, with the new facility completed in the summer of 2006. The cost of building this new prototype high school was expected to be about $54 million, and the total project cost was approximately $75 million.
Mr. Smith then had the Committee view a current aerial photograph of Rancho High School, looking towards the northeast. He pointed to the southern portion of the site, where the new high school would be erected, and said the school’s athletic fields were currently there. Students and staff would continue to operate out of the existing school for two years, while the new school facilities were under construction; however, the football, soccer, baseball, softball and track programs would have to use athletic fields at a nearby high school for a three-year period while the new facility and new athletic fields were under construction. When students and staff moved from the existing facility, that would be demolished and the demolition area would be the site of the new athletic facilities.
The Committee also viewed an illustration of the completed construction, and Mr. Smith said he wished to point out that the replacement school facilities were based on a new high school prototype, the first of which was opened in August of 2005, so this would be the second of the new prototype high schools.
In order for Rancho High School to be Clark County’s fifth replacement school, Mr. Smith verified that the Legislature would be asked to increase the $90 million cap by $45 million to $135 million, and extend the July 2005 deadline by an additional 13 months to August of 2006. If the cap and the deadline were not extended, he revealed, the Board of School Trustees had already designated that Burkholder Middle School would be the fifth replacement school, given the funding available.
Mr. Smith concluded his portion of the presentation and asked for questions.
Chairman Williams inquired if there were any questions from Committee members, and recognized Mr. Geddes.
Assemblyman Geddes asked Mr. Smith if he could discuss some of the energy-saving techniques that were designed for the new buildings.
Mr. Smith reported that many methods were utilized that would take advantage of the natural light coming into the school, which along with an energy-efficient HVAC system, would reduce utility costs. He explained that utility costs could be reduced further, as the design of the building was totally enclosed; the central courtyard would become the lobby for the gymnasium and the theater, and would contain the overflow from the student activity center, thus keeping energy from escaping.
Mr. Geddes asked if the energy-saving features would have a bigger effect on the initial cost, or was that something recovered over the life of the building.
Mr. Smith affirmed that those types of systems had an initial cost; however, the total life cycle cost analysis, which was an analysis on how long the object should last, was reviewed to be sure that energy efficiency was accomplished and, therefore, the cost recovered.
Mr. Williams checked for questions; there were none, and Mr. Walt Rulffes, Deputy Superintendent and CFO for the Clark County School District, introduced himself. He wished to review with the Committee the area where the District would need the Committee’s help. He articulated that the five schools designed for replacement through A.B. 499 of the 71st Legislative Session were presumed to be elementary schools, and at an estimate of $18 million per elementary school, the cap of $90 million was arrived at. However, the fifth school was a high school, and there was not enough left in the funding to accommodate a high school instead of an elementary school. Rancho High School would cost approximately $75 million to replace, and there were considerably less funds than that left after construction of the four elementary schools. He then gave a summary, a copy of which was given to all members, entitled “Overview of the 1998 Building Program” (Exhibit D). He stated that it represented the 88 new schools and 2 bus yards, and approximately $900 million for remodeling of existing schools, and it also showed that in March of 2002, the Board revised it based on new information, which raised the total project cost to $3.7 billion. He commented on the second column, which showed the price of land increasing and the price of new schools decreasing, and he stated that the acceleration of the program was the reason for the change in figures.
Mr. Rulffes also expressed satisfaction that the Board had added a special career and occupational school instead of a high school as originally planned. He described it as a vocational school for about 2000 students, a rare model due to its size, and divided into five separate academies to address the occupational education issues for school-to-work students.
The overview showed the five replacement schools, which were built without additional revenue other than what was generated from the original bond, and school additions that were modifications to existing schools, but it did not contain a master plan for remodeling, as the $900 million was for roofs, HVAC systems, and similar items. Mr. Rulffes explained that the Board hired Dejong and Associates, who spent an extensive amount of time gathering new data and incorporating it into the Board’s data to form a ten-year master plan, and that Carolyn, who was with him, was with Dejong and Associates.
Mr. Rulffes related that the plan he would describe to the Committee would go through 2012, even though the bond issue only went to 2008, as preliminary planning for future bond issues had to be accomplished. He also indicated that the funding went from $3.5 billion to $3.7 billion, as the original projections turned out to be less than the actual cost would be. The reality, he stated, was that the funding would not be available until the Board had the capacity to issue bonds against the excess assessed value, so the majority of the additional $300 million to $400 million would not be available until the end of the ten-year bond issue. He estimated that the revenue generated would exceed $3.7 billion. He then turned the presentation over to Carolyn Staskiewicz of Dejong and Associates.
Carolyn Staskiewicz reiterated that she was with Dejong and Associates, and thanked the Committee for allowing her to present the Comprehensive Master Plan for the Clark County School District that was prepared by Dejong and Associates.
Ms. Staskiewicz gave a brief narrative of Dejong and Associates, stating it was an educational planning firm, established in 1992 with three employees, and that Dr. William Dejong was still an integral part of the organization and had worked on this project. She described Dejong as the largest educational planning firm in the country and stated that Dejong and Associates had worked on over 1,000 educational projects in 33 states as well as Canada, China, and Honduras, and they employed architects, engineers, former educators and business managers, as well as 8 recognized educational facility professionals. She also described their work developing several state standards and guidelines for school construction, including those in Alaska and Ohio.
Ms. Staskiewicz then showed a picture of a complicated diagram of the master planning process that was used in Clark County, beginning from data collection and project initiation to prioritization of schools, and then to the final master plan. She brought with her a simplified version of the Master Plan (Exhibit E). She revealed that Dejong and Associates started in August with data collection and included information from the District such as site surveys and building assessments. The information was compiled, and facility service representatives were sent out with this list to physically go through each building and determine that the data was valid. After the data was cleaned up, it was sorted into a facility condition index by age and other ways, and then taken to the regents who handled educational planning in Clark County so they could build a consensus on each area’s priorities.
Ms. Staskiewicz related that over the past few months, Dejong and Associates had presented their draft plan to the Bond Oversight Committee and the Board of Trustees, doing documentation and training the District to take the plan over to personalize it and update the plan with any changes. She found that the school buildings in Clark County were divided into two groups: those built prior to 1970-1980, and those built during the building boom of the 1990s. Their focus was on schools built before the 1970s.
Ms. Staskiewicz articulated that the Master Plan was actually in three segments: New construction of 88 schools plus 46 additional schools; replacement or partial replacement of 59 schools; and 15 schools in a modernization category, which included everything from full modernization to component replacement.
Ms. Staskiewicz then advised that Dejong had to compare all plans with the current budget. They identified approximately $3 billion in additional money, with $1.5 billion for replacement schools, and $1.5 billion for new schools beyond 2006. She advised that the capital renewal program included replacements or partial replacements of the other schools she spoke about, and Dejong looked at facility condition index, the age of the building, and educational adequacy; they spoke with regents to hear about the experiences of those who walked daily in those buildings; and they looked at deficiencies by priority, deficiencies by system, and life cycle costs.
Ms. Staskiewicz also related that, as part of the replacement and partial replacement program, the District had to include the 1998 bond program, with the fiscal part to be determined for the proposed new Rancho High School. Dejong employees then sorted the listed schools by facility condition, index, and region, and compared the cost to renovate the building up to current standards, as opposed to rebuilding. They also considered newer buildings on older campuses, and ensured that the newer buildings were incorporated into the redesign and not replaced. Buildings were also sorted by age, and representatives from Dejong spent a week going to the each of the regions, and spoke with superintendents, their representatives, personnel from instruction and curriculum, facility administrators and their staff, and the facility surface representatives; she stated that Dejong could “crunch” the data, but to be effective had to be aware of living conditions in the buildings.
Ms. Staskiewicz reported that a replacement school list of approximately 59 schools came from this study. Of these schools, 30 definitely needed replacement; another 30 needed full modernization or possible replacement. She said it was felt that the schools should be reassessed before they were replaced, due to the huge cost of replacement, and they also included completed work and modernization plans for the 2002-2003 annual plan. The total cost was $1.5 billion, scheduled to be spread over a ten-year period.
Ms. Staskiewicz estimated that some benefits of a replacement program could include elimination of duplicate work; schedules could be phased to include appropriate sequencing; so, for example, pavement would not be laid and then torn up to install new sprinkler lines. She felt that disruption could be minimized and cash flow maximized if the work was planned correctly, rather than a “piecemeal” effort.
Regarding modernization, Ms. Staskiewicz advised that Dejong and Associates looked at each building and found that the HVAC was the biggest deficiency, followed by roofing, plumbing, and structural issues. They also examined life cycle costs, and Ms. Staskiewicz gave an example of the life cycle of an air handling unit, explaining that if its life cycle was 22 years, and it had been operating for 21 years, then they planned to replace the air handling unit within the next two to three years.
Ms. Staskiewicz summarized her part of the presentation by concluding that the District now had a plan that addressed every building in its inventory, indicated if the building should be fully or partially replaced, or noted that only the deficiencies in the building should be corrected. As the District was an active participant, they would be able to “keep the vision moving forward.”
Mr. Rulffes then added that, while the replacement plan was presented to the Board of School Trustees, it had not been approved, because the Board requested time to review the plan in case changes in the listings were necessary.
Chairman Williams then inquired what their time frame would be if that list was accepted by the Board of School Trustees as written.
Ms. Staskiewicz replied that the project started in 2002, so there was already some adjustment necessary, and would go through 2012, with three to five schools completed per year.
Mr. Rulffes added that the District would work on preliminary planning for a follow-up bond issue.
Chairman Williams then requested clarification on the 2012 date; if it was the projected time of completion, or the start of construction.
Ms. Staskiewicz responded that 2012 was the projected date for completion.
Mr. Rulffes also wished to comment on the list, stating that the schools were in groups of three to five, and their position on the list could change based on the criteria, as well as other changes made. He asserted that the list was not to be perceived as finalized.
Chairman Williams commented that there could be a number of factors that influenced changes on the list.
Mr. Rulffes agreed, clarifying that they were attempting to make the replacement program “seamless” so that when the first five schools were completed, they would work on others as appropriate within the funding capacity, and then would plan the rest in concert with the next round of bond issues.
When Chairman Williams asked Mr. Rulffes what he thought the next round of bond issues would be, Mr. Rulffes requested that Ms. Joyce Haldeman, Executive Director of Community and Government Relations for the Clark County School District, respond.
Ms. Haldeman then explained that the Board of Trustees had not made a full decision, and they were actually the ones who decided when to move forward on a bond issue. She related that one advantage with a ten-year building program was the lack of stopping and starting that occurred with a two-year building program. She said that discussions had revealed that the optimum time to go back to the voters would be November of 2006, and as the formula had worked well, she hoped the voters would give the plan a ten-year extension.
Ms. Haldeman also reminded Committee members that only one of three funding sources came from voter approval; the other two were legislatively approved. They would go to the voters in November of 2006, and then go to the Legislature in 2007 to request extension of the hotel room tax and the real estate transfer tax, so that the same formula of funding, which had worked well, could be applied to the long-term planning.
Chairman Williams affirmed the replacement of schools would make the 2006 bond issue more attractive.
Ms. Haldeman agreed with Chairman Williams, stating that voters wanted to see the improvements in their own neighborhoods.
Chairman Williams then recognized Assemblyman McCleary, who had a question concerning Rancho High School. Mr. McCleary observed that Rancho High School was in his district; he believed it was the second oldest high school in the valley. He was concerned that Rancho would retain its name if the school was rebuilt, as this was an emotional issue for his constituents.
Mr. Rulffes asserted that it could be unfortunate to attempt the name change of a high school.
Mr. McCleary admitted that he was worried about it, and asked if Mr. Rulffes’ answer was no.
Mr. Rulffes explained that it was not his decision, but in his experience changing both the name or the location of a high school had a traumatic impact on the community. He would report those concerns to the Board of School Trustees.
Mr. McCleary expressed his gratitude.
Mr. Rulffes then concluded that there was over $5 billion worth of upcoming work on new and replacement schools, but only a little over $4 billion in committed revenue; there weren’t enough funds to proceed through 2012 without an infusion of new funding. He also expressed his desire for the Committee to help accommodate the Rancho High School replacement, rather than work on Burkholder Middle School.
Assemblyman Andonov questioned the life cycle of new construction, inquiring what the average life cycle of a newly constructed school was, and if that life cycle differed from a partially replaced older school.
In response, Mr. Smith explained that when they designed a facility, they designed for a 50-year life cycle. However, certain components in that school would not last 50 years; for instance, after 20 years the HVAC unit would generally need replacing. School buildings built at the same time would all have the same general 50-year life cycle; however, those with buildings constructed at different times might have life cycles that overlapped.
Mr. Andonov then asked if the building was partially replaced, would that give a new 50-year life cycle, or would it depend on each component.
Mr. Smith responded that it would depend on how the partial replacement was completed, as anything that was not replaced during the remodeling would have to be replaced eventually.
Assemblywoman Chowning announced that she had a comment first, and then a question. She was thankful for the replacement of Sunrise Acres School which she described as “stupendous” as due to its age and the increase in traffic around the school, it had become dangerous for students and faculty. Her question addressed how one school was chosen over another.
Mr. Rulffes thanked Mrs. Chowning for her comments on Sunrise Acres, and invited anyone who wished to come and see the new school, commenting that he was proud that this school was completed on time, on budget. He asked that Ms. Staskiewicz address Mrs. Chowning’s question, as there was a criteria regarding the replacement schedule.
Ms. Staskiewicz explained that there were several reasons why buildings built in the same year could have differing life cycles. She articulated that different architects or construction management could alter the life cycle, as could the amount of funding spent on the building. She reported that the rule of thumb they used was 60 percent; if the cost to modernize was 60 percent or more of the replacement cost, then the building should be replaced. She identified Ohio as having a two-thirds rule – if the cost to modernize was more than two-thirds of the cost to replace, the building had to be replaced in order to receive state funds.
Mr. Rulffes also articulated some problems they had, such as designing a building around a 1980 or 1990 structure that was built too recently to be torn down, and maintaining a safe environment in the school buildings until they could be remodeled or replaced.
Chairman Williams asked for any remaining questions, and reminded Committee members that the Assembly was to convene downstairs.
Assemblyman Manendo commented that Ms. Staskiewicz’ list was very hard to read, and inquired if she had determined which schools on the list would be fully replaced, and which ones would be partially replaced.
Ms. Staskiewicz replied that she could answer that question.
Mr. Manendo requested a written list.
Ms. Staskiewicz regretted not bringing enough copies for everyone, but assured Mr. Manendo that she would provide them all with a copy.
Mr. Manendo continued with his second question, asking if the actual cost of running a particular school was taken into account. He cited Chapparal High School as one of the most expensive schools to operate, and wondered if this expense was taken into account when replacing or remodeling Chapparal.
Ms. Staskiewicz divulged that they did not survey energy and operational costs of the schools.
Mr. Manendo wanted to know why they did not do a survey, when the cost was passed on to taxpayers. He felt it should be a huge factor.
Mr. Rulffes explained that there was a correlation between the age and condition of the HVAC system and the cost, so he felt that, in one way, it was incorporated into the formula. He reported that they were contemplating a confirmation process to ensure that they had operating costs incorporated into the models for replacement criteria.
Mr. Manendo expounded that he graduated from Chapparal in 1985, and when he attended they either froze or sweltered, and he inquired as to how many schools would be replaced, or partially replaced, before going to the voters in 2006.
Mr. Rulffes regretted that he could not be specific on the number, because the cost of elementary schools differed widely from the cost of high schools, but he affirmed that it was something the Board of School Trustees was examining.
Mr. Manendo then asked how much money was left before they had to go to the voters in 2006.
Mr. Rulffes explained that was why he addressed the additional capacity of $300 to $400 million, which was available at the Board of School Trustees’ discretion to apply to replacement schools or similar areas.
Mr. Manendo reminded Ms. Staskiewicz to provide him with the list of schools for full or partial replacement.
Ms. Staskiewicz agreed, but reminded Mr. Manendo that the information was in draft form, and had not been approved by the Board of School Trustees.
Chairman Williams then remarked that there might be other meetings where the District would address questions or bills, and if it was acceptable, he would allow the Committee to ask questions at that time in reference to today’s presentation.
Mr. Rulffes advised the Committee that the Oversight Panel for School Facilities, which was created by the Education Committee to oversee the revenue side of school facilities, would be meeting on April 3 to discuss A.B. 353. He welcomed any legislators that could attend the meeting in Las Vegas.
Mr. Manendo then asked Mr. Rulffes if there were any plans to replace the Education Center itself.
Mr. Rulffes replied that there were no formal plans; he felt that in the future, attention would have to be paid to that structure, but the money would not come from bond funds.
Mr. Manendo was curious if the Center would stay in the same location on East Flamingo. Mr. Rulffes was unsure and stated they were not that far along in the planning.
Chairman Williams noted that members had been called downstairs for the Assembly floor meeting a second time and reminded them all about the meeting in Las Vegas next Friday, stating that if some members could not attend in Las Vegas, it was all right to attend by teleconference in Carson City. Those members with another priority could be excused. At 4:46 p.m., Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Victoria Thompson
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Chairman
DATE: