►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
C
C
A
A
A
A
E
F
Good
morning,
thank
you,
as
jerry
mentioned,
my
name's
valerie
hughes
I
am
formerly
or
coming
over
from
the
west
coast.
I
was
working
for
the
university
of
california,
san
diego
and
part
of
that
uc
system
tied
into
the
state
of
california.
So
I'm
very
happy
to
be
here
in
wyoming.
I'm
excited
looking
forward
to
everything
that
it
brings
and
enjoying
it
so
far
so
nice
to
meet
you
all.
Thank
you.
E
E
E
E
Second
page
at
the
bottom,
where
in
the
last
commission
meeting
the
department
felt
like
the
commission,
our
department
ag's
office,
that
we
had
enough
of
a
consensus
on
all
the
chapters,
but
eight
that
we
recommended
option
two
at
the
bottom
to
go
forward
with
maybe
putting
the
other
chapters
into
comment
period.
So
we
could
hear
more
and
and
holding
off
on
chapter
eight.
E
E
30
is
a
revised
commission
date
and
on
that
date,
they'll
start
off
with
a
public
hearing.
I
believe
they
put
an
8
30
to
10
time
frame
on
that
and
then
they'll
go
into
the
commission
meeting
and
during
that
commission
meeting
the
chair
of
the
commission
did
say
that
if
there
is
any
input
during
this
45
days
that
they
will
review
it,
they
will
weigh
it.
I
assume
somewhere
in
there.
A
H
I
E
H
H
E
Thank
you
so
I'll
I'll
do
my
best
on
what
this
one
would
have
been
on
august
13th.
We
have
had
a
lot
of
back
and
forth,
not
just
with
laramie
one
but
the
other
ones,
but
what
this
would
have
called
out
to
me
was
probably
at
the
time
when
the
army
one
came
up
with
a
model
and
a
software
package
and
how
all
that
was
completely
different.
E
The
way
we
did
before
and
had
some
very
interesting
points
to
it
and
aspects,
and
that's
when
we
started
working
with
them
on
the
model
and
at
that
time
the
commission
asked
us
to
continue
that
dialogue
with
the
district
on
the
model.
So
that's
probably
what
we
were
calling
out,
I'm
guessing
yeah
thank.
A
A
However,
the
the
commission
elected
to
go
ahead
and
issue
those
rules
to
the
public
for
public
comment
and
we
really
have
not
had
the
chance
to
to
there
were
things
missing
out
of
chapter
eight
that
we
didn't
review,
certainly
all
the
numbers
that
were
supposed
to
be
in
there.
I
just
wondered
if
the
committee
had
any
issues
with
the
final
product
and
the
numbers
that
were
put
in
there.
H
I
don't
really
have
any
concerns,
but
it
seems
like
the
in
public
comment.
They
were
concerned
with
the
way
things
went
forward.
Some
of
the
comments
are
especially
in
chapter
10.
They
wondered
why
some
of
the
numbers
were
taken
out
blah
blah
blah.
So
that
was
something
that
I
marked
up
in
my
book
that
there
was
a
lot
of
concern
from
the
public
as
to
the
way
things
were
done.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Okay,.
A
Reviews
and
that's
not
the
intent
of
value
engineering,
so
with
this
language
still
in
there,
they
could
submit
a
90.
They
could
request
a
95
review,
which
is
not
in
my
in
my
purview
is
actually
detrimental,
so
I
will
be
putting
a
public
comment
in
there
because,
apparently
they
didn't
listen
to
me
or
maybe
they
don't
agree.
I
that's
certainly
anyhow
my
thoughts
on
that
particular
topic.
A
J
I
just
want
to
first
of
all
begin
by
thanking
director
vincent.
I
I
think
since
his
arrival-
and
this
is,
I
have
a
great
deal
of
respect
for
mr
muldrow
too,
but
mr
vincent
has
been
incredible
at
reaching
out
engaging
the
districts,
de-escalating
frustrations
and
trying
to
work
toward
collaborative
solutions.
So
I
appreciate
he
and
chair
garland
and
the
members
of
the
commission
who
have
really
tried
hard
to
get
out
and
engage
the
school
districts.
J
We
wish
there
were
more
that
were
able
to
get
to
engage,
but
having
come
from
a
smaller
school
district
earlier
in
my
career,
I
can
tell
you
that
a
lot
of
school
districts
are
just
trying
to
keep
a
head
above
water,
and
so
it's
it's
hard
for
them
to
engage
these
rules
and
these
processes
they're
they're
complex,
and
it
takes
a
lot
of
time
to
become
acquainted
with
them.
So
I
want
to
thank
them.
J
I
want
to
thank
this
committee
for
giving
us
a
couple
of
moments
to
offer
some
comments.
I
think
our
goal,
as
we've
we've
gone
through
this
process,
is
to
try
to
find
a
way
to
implement
chapter
21,
as
as
recently
amended
by
the
legislature
in
a
way
that's
faithful
to
the
intent
of
what
we
believe
the
legislature
was
trying
to
accomplish.
J
So,
just
to
touch
on
a
couple
of
big
rocks
that
we've
been
working
with
the
commission
on
one
of
the
things
we
want
to
try
to
do
and
the
reason
why
we've
proposed
the
vectoring
approach
versus
a
weighted
approach
is
because
we
want
to
make
sure
that
one
condition
doesn't
mask
another.
And
what
I
mean
by
that
is
when
you
weight
capacity
or
you
wait
condition
it.
J
If
you
get
a
list
that
simply
shows
a
conditioned
school
and
the
capacity
schools
aren't
readily
apparent.
I
think
it
makes
it
hard
for
the
legislature
to
do
its
work
in
terms
of
deciding
which
which
buildings
to
fund,
and
so
what
we
tried
to
do
is
engage
people
who
were
smarter
than
us,
and
and
could
we
we
spent
a
lot
of
time
working
with
the
department.
J
The
other
thing
that
we've
been
working
hard
with
the
department
and
the
commission
on
is
making
sure
the
capacity
is
assessed
at
the
building
level.
I
think
it's
important
to
look
at
it
in
the
context
of
a
district
level
so
that,
if,
if
it
makes
sense
to
move
kiddos
over
to
the
the
next
attendance
area,
then
absolutely
we
need
to
do
that
and
we
we
do
not
want
to
duck
that
in
any
way.
J
The
other
thing,
mr
chairman,
is
the
fci
score.
It
hasn't
been
assessed.
The
state
statutes
require
that
it
gets
assessed
every
four
years
and
I
think
we're
coming
up
on
six
years
since
it's
last
been
assessed.
So,
in
order
for
these
changes
to
be
meaningful
to
the
to
the
legislature
and
and
to
the
districts,
I
think
we've
got
to
put
a
a
strong
focus
on
getting
our
our
assessment.
In
the
other
thing
that
I
would
tell
you
is
that,
as
we've
been
running,
this
vector
chart
it's
it's
interesting
because
you
can.
J
It's
interesting
to
see
what
happens,
and,
and
so,
as
you
see
in
your
your
upcoming
session,
there
aren't
going
to
be
any
requests
for
conditioned
schools,
because
that
no
one
merits
a
0.65
score.
So
I
think
it'll
be
interesting
for
this
body
in
the
legislature
to
play
with
mr
chairman.
I
also
agree
with
your
comment
on
the
value
engineering
it
it
after
the
35.
It
is
a
complete
redo
in
terms
of
having
your
your
architect
go
back
and
redesign
it.
J
The
other
concern
that
I
have
is
that
the
value
engineering,
the
way
the
rules
are
written
presently,
the
value
engineering,
every
recommendation
of
the
value
engineer
is,
is
essentially
binding
and
if
you
understand
the
value
engineering
process,
the
problem
with
that
is
value.
Engineering
is
a
bit
of
a
brainstorming
session,
so
you
go
in
and
you
throw
out
crazy
ideas
and
and
see
if
they
work,
but
if
they
are
all
if
they
all
become
binding.
J
The
the
fear
is
is
that
it'll
undermine
creativity,
it'll
it'll
cause
people
to
not
want
to
stretch,
and
so
I
would
ask
and
have
asked
the
the
commission
to
consider
removing
the
requirement
that
all
value
engineering
recommendations
are
binding
unless
waived
by
the
director.
There's
only
been
one
district,
that's
gone
through
that
process.
It's
us
and
and
and
it
was
definitely
challenging-
and
that's
all
I
have,
mr
chairman-
unless
there
are
there
are
questions.
K
Representative
brown,
thank
you,
mr
chairman
jeff,
just
a
quick
question
for
you,
the
value
engineering
piece
you
and
I
have
spoken
offline
multiple
times,
especially
in
regards
to
that.
I'm
just
kind
of
curious
out
of
that.
What
I
understand
value
engineering
to
be
is
a
larger
scope
of
looking
at
what
can
we
do
to
reduce
the
overall
footprint
and
or
cost,
and
really
look
at
what's
actually
going
to
cost
us
less?
K
J
Brown
I
joined
this
district
about
a
year
ago,
and
so
I
was
if
it's
okay
with
you
I'd
like
to
see
if
mr
bartlett,
who
was
involved
in
that
value
engineering
process,
I
wasn't
on
that
school.
I
just
joined
the
district
in
august
of
last
year
a
year
ago
august,
so
I
I
don't
have
that
information
if
it
would
be
all
right.
Perhaps
we
could
ask
him
to
speak
to
that.
L
L
Keep
in
mind
that
your
question
about
capacity,
the
bioengineering
is
not
going
to
address
capacity.
The
capacity
of
the
building
is
based
on
the
five-year
projection
from
for
completion
with
carrie
the
issue
there
was
we
had
it
designed,
I
believe
in
2013,
then,
when
we
we
put
it
on
the
back
burner
for
those
two
years.
L
K
J
A
G
Mr
chairman,
at
your
last
meeting,
you
requested
our
staff
prepare
a
proposed
budget
bill
in
response
to
the
commission's
recommendations
and
in
addition,
the
commission
or
excuse
me.
The
select
committee
also
requested
an
additional
8.2
million
dollars
for
the
riverton
high
school
auditorium
be
added
as
well.
At
this
point,
I
can
certainly
walk
you
through
the
bill.
If
that's
your
pleasure.
A
G
This
is
22
lso,
160
working
draft
70.
you'll
note
at
the
very
beginning,
there's
a
staff
comment
that
indicates
that
the
operations
and
the
engineering
and
technical
cost,
as
well
as
the
major
maintenance
costs
associated
that
are
appropriated
to
the
state
construction
department,
are
not
included
within
this
bill.
Those
are
in
the
agency,
27.
G
Those
are
in
the
agency
27
designation
within
the
budget
bill,
and
I
would
start
the
discussion
on
this,
noting
that
this
budget
has
been
handled
in
a
couple
of
ways.
Sometimes
it
has
come
in
a
form
of
a
separate
bill
as
you'll
see
here
and
other
times.
The
joint
appropriations
committee
has
chosen
to
put
it
in
as
a
section
300
within
the
budget
bill.
G
G
moving
on
to
page
3
lines
17
through
15..
This
designates
that
the
project
amounts
for
the
laramie
county
school
district
number,
one
capacity,
which
is
an
additional
six
million
dollars,
the
funds
for
component
level
projects,
demolition,
unanticipated
and
other
priorities,
which
includes
campbell
counties,
demolition,
design,
construction
and
fremont
county
25's
auditorium.
G
Those
appropriations
are
effective
july,
1st
of
2022
through
completion
of
the
project,
page
3
line
17
through
page
4
line
2..
This
just
confirms
what's
already
authorized
in
statute,
and
that
is
that
the
department
has
the
ability
to
submit
a
supplemental
budget
next
year,
page
four
lines:
four
through
fourteen.
This
requires
that
the
department
use
that
estimated
schedule
provided
to
this
committee
in
deploying
the
funds
appropriated
to
the
extent
practical
page
4
lines
16-21.
G
This
confirms
that
the
appropriations
are
not
entitlements
nor
guarantee
and
also
restricts
expenditures
to
ensure
adequate,
efficient
and
cost-effective
school
buildings
in
accordance
with
wyoming
statute.
Page
five
lines,
one
through
eleven.
This
is
a
reporting
requirement
of
the
school
facilities
commission
and
the
department
back
to
the
this
committee
and
the
joint
appropriations
committee
and
the
governor
on
the
deployment
of
the
appropriations
that
are
recommended
within
this
draft
page
5
lines
13.
G
G
You
can
find
the
districts
that
are
will
receive
that
money
on
page
six
lines:
five
through
seven,
moving
on
to
page
six
lines:
ten
through
twenty
three.
This
appropriates
one
hundred
nine
thousand
six
hundred
twenty
five
dollars
for
modular
buildings
and
leases.
And
again
you
can
find
those
listed
on
lines
18
through
22
on
page
six,
moving
on
to
page
seven
lines:
two
through
19.,
this
section
appropriates
an
additional
six
million
dollars
to
laramie
county
school
district
number.
G
One
for
the
construction
of
an
elementary
school
to
remedy
capacity
needs
you'll
note
that
these
funds
are,
in
addition
to
the
funds
appropriated
in
the
2021
chapter,
80,
section,
313
g
romanette
4,
and
it
does
require
that
those
funds
be
expended
prior
to
expending
the
additional
6
million.
There's
also
prohibition
on
changing
the
scope
or
the
design
of
the
project
in
expenditure
of
these
additional
funds.
G
Page
8
line
20
through
page
9
line
2.
This
requires
that
the
district
exhaust
all
other
means
to
fund
the
component
level
projects
in
the
previous
paragraph,
which
includes
federal
funds
as
well
page
nine
lines,
four
through
nine.
This
appropriates
three
hundred
thousand
dollars
for
professional,
consulting
expertise
and
other
administrative
costs
to
conduct
studies
approved
by
the
commission
to
determine
the
most
cost.
Effective
remedies
for
school
districts,
page
nine
lines
11
through
23
appropriates
five
million.
Ninety
one
thousand
three
hundred
and
ninety
four
dollars
for
demolition
projects.
G
Then
you
can
find
those
districts
on
page
nine
lines:
nineteen
through
twenty
one
page
ten
lines,
one
through
eight
appropriates
six
hundred
eighteen
thousand
three
hundred
and
fifty
one
dollars
for
the
purposes
of
land
acquisitions.
You'll
note
that
this
requires
the
commission
and
the
department
to
report
to
this
body,
as
well
as
the
jac
and
the
jec
prior
to
the
expenditure
of
funds
appropriated
in
this
particular
paragraph.
G
The
high
school
auditorium
you'll
know
on
page
11
line
three
eight
point:
two
million
dollars,
and
that
is
the
legislative
priority
section.
Two
page
eleven
lines:
six
through
twenty
three
transfers,
money
from
a
major
maintenance
account
within
the
cipa
within
the
strategic
investment
and
projects
account
and
the
school
lands,
mineral
royalties
account
to
the
school
capital
construction
account.
This
typically
is
a
budget
amendment
within
the
budget.
G
G
M
Representative
walters.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
My
question
is
on
page
bottom
of
page
seven
and
on
to
page
eight,
the
last
couple
years
for
component
level
funding.
We
had
moved
away
from
listing
what
we
would
we
were
willing
to
spend
on
those
projects,
and
here
we
list
a
maximum
amount
in
the
past
couple
years.
We
have
said
just
using
this
as
an
example,
20.8
million
would
be
available
for
the
projects
below
and
then
task.
M
G
Mr
chairman,
representative
walters,
you
are
correct.
That
is
how
it
has
been
passed
by
the
legislature
in
a
couple
of
instances
in
the
bill.
I
used
a
bill
that
was
presented
to
this
body
or
to
this
committee
last
year
in
preparation
and
so
as
presented
to
the
select
committee.
It
did
include
the
list
and
then
I
don't
know
if
it
was
through
jac
or
through
committee
action
through
the
select
committee
that
it
was
changed,
but
you
are
correct
as
passed
by
the
legislature.
G
A
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Just
a
quick
question:
tanya
the
discussion
at
the
end
of
the
total
cost.
What
is
the
total
cost
of
this
bill?
What
does
it
come
in
at?
It
doesn't
come
in
at
221,
because
I
think
that
221
is
inclusive
of
the
state
construction
department
budget
with
major
maintenance.
Do
we
do
we
know
what
the
actual
total
appropriation
value
of
all
of
the
projects
in
this
bill
is
equal
to.
N
Mr
chairman,
thank
you.
I
just
to
go
back
to
a
very
good
point
made
by
former
chairman
walters.
I
think
I
think
we
should
consider
removing
those.
As
tanya
pointed
out.
It
is
very
helpful
for
us
for
our
select
committee
to
to
have
a
look
at
what
these
projects
are
in
a
ballpark,
but
I
think
it's
useful
going
forward.
N
D
D
I
think
we
did
that
a
couple
of
years
ago,
if
I
recall
correctly,
and
basically
allowed
the
commission
to
go
down
as
far
on
the
list
as
they
could
afford,
with
the
with
the
total
amount
of
money
that
was
available,
I
think
that's
generally
good
practice
recognizing
that
they
might
actually
be
able
to
to
combine
a
couple
of
projects
or
or
get
an
occasional
win
and
therefore
knock
something
lower
off
the
list.
So
we
might
want
to
contemplate
that.
A
And
as
thank
you
senator
and
as
you
recall,
the
the
the
point
down
the
list
where
they
went
was
actually
higher,
and
this
number
represents
a
lower
cut
cut
point.
So
and
frankly,
I
I'm
not
so
sure.
If,
if
we're
intending
that
to
be
the
case,
you
know
we've
got
to
write
down
to
the
dollar
right
if
we're,
if
we're
actually
not
contemplating
and
that
maybe
it
ought
to
be
a
rounded
figure
like
21
million
dollars
and
just
be
done
done
with
it
and.
O
A
N
Mr
chairman,
thank
you
just
to
pick
up
on
good
points
made
by
senator
rothfuss.
I
it
goes
without
saying,
and
I
know
the
director
is
on
this
knows
all
about
this,
but
any
encouragement
on
this
component
level
that
we
can
give
to
our
districts
to
work
together
and
several
of
our
districts
have
really
done
a
great
job
on
that
front,
and
I
think
I
think
that
goes
a
long
ways
too
and
there's
always
an
opportunity
for
some
collaboration
and
that
helps
us
to
get
further
down
the
list
too.
N
A
G
K
G
H
G
P
Mr
chairman,
senator
hutchings,
that
is
done
as
a
percentage
of
the
other,
not
component,
but
just
component.
It
is
track
component
demolition,
construction.
Basically,
all
of
the
projects
that
are
in
there.
We
do
it
as
a
percentage
of
that
we
get
that
percentage
by
working
with
the
economic
analysis
division
over
at
a
I,
as
far
as
the
economics
where
they
feel
like
the
inflation
factors
are
going,
and
we
do
that
as
a
percentage
that
this
was
calculated
as
six
percent
of
those
of
those
projects.
Is
that
helpful?
Yes,
ma'am?
Thank
you.
You're
welcome.
H
Thank
you
for
what
mr
chairman,
yes,
heather,
hutchins
as
I
read
through
the
bill
on
page
11,
I'm
really
10
and
11..
Let's
go
back.
This
is
titled
on
page
10
line
15..
It
says
other
school
buildings
and
facility
priorities,
and
when
I
look
at
that,
I'm
thinking
wow
something
we
really
need
this
badly.
H
H
A
Commissioners,
I
you
know,
we
just
discussed
this
at
our
last
meeting
and
it
was
the
at
least.
I
believe
it
was
the
intent
of
this
body
to
since
we've
rolled
it
back
so
many
times
and
and
it's
and
they've
they've
been
put
back
and
it's
been
years
that
we
need
to
finally
make
them
whole,
and
I
think
that
was
the
intent.
D
Yeah,
mr
chairman,
I
I
think
it
is
a
matter
of
of
curing
an
ill
that
has
slipped
through
the
cracks
for
a
lot
of
years,
based
on
the
way
that
we
run.
This
show
where
we
have
a
system
and
that
system
doesn't
provide
for
the
possibility
of
identifying
that
auditorium
as
a
component
as
major
maintenance
as
anything
else.
D
So
we
recognize
that
we
have
a
high
school
in
the
state
that
was
built
at
a
time
when
funds
were
short.
There
was
a
this
is
prior
to
the
current
system.
We
never
would
have
built
it
that
way
under
the
current
system.
There's
just
no
way
they
would
have
had
an
auditorium.
There's
no
question
about
it,
so
we
have
then
many
years
that
have
passed
where
they
haven't
had
what
every
other
school
would
have
were
to
build
it,
and
at
that
point
it's
an
inequity.
D
When
you
have
inequitable
educational
provision,
that's
effectively
a
violation
of
the
wyoming
constitution,
they
haven't
been
complaining
about
that.
They
really
just
come
in
and
ask
us
to
make
it
whole
and
they
have
for
quite
a
few
years.
I
think
they've
been
more
than
patient
and
cooperative
with
us
to
to
provide
good,
quotes,
a
reasonable
remedy
and
and
to
work
with
us
on
the
timeline.
D
D
You
know
next
year
won't
be
a
good
year
either
and
last
year
wasn't
one.
It
just
comes
down
to
the
fact
that
at
some
point
we
have
to
do
the
right
thing,
step
up
and
and
recognize
that
this
is
a
priority
project,
and
I
think
that
is
our
role
as
a
select
committee
to
identify
where
we're
we're
not
doing
the
right
thing
and
and
then
provide
for
that
that
opportunity
for
the
district
so
I'll
continue
to
support
it.
I
I
understand
that
times
are
tough,
but
again
every
every
year.
D
I
think
I've
been
on
the
select
committee.
We've
talked
about
how
times
are
tough
and-
and
that's
generally
the
case,
so
it's
a
matter
of
prioritization
and
that's
one
that
I
think
we
can
as
we
look
at
the
budget,
particularly
as
we
look
at
craig,
that's
that's
coming
up.
We
see
how
things
are
going
to
be
anticipating
what
we
see
there.
This
is
probably
a
good
year
to
make
that
remedy.
When
we
don't
have
any
other
huge
projects
that
that
have
to
go
through.
D
Q
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
The
other
thing-
and
I
know
that
senator
roughness
has
already
alluded
to.
It-
is
the
fact
that
this
was
a
bonded
school
before
we
were
actually
taking
care
of
the
schools.
They
had
to
cut
their
budget
back
to
meet
the
bond,
and
so
they
were
unable
to
make
the
auditorium
at
that
time
all
the
rest
of
our
schools
that
we
funded
have
the
auditorium.
So
I
think
it's
just
right
to
get
this
done.
Q
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
kind
of
a
follow-up,
so
with
this
being
on
the
list,
does
that
mean
it's
just
included
in
the
list,
or
this
is
just
something
we're
gonna
do?
How
does
this
work
with
this
select
committee
since
I'm
new
on
it
because
they
still
have
heartburn,
I
mean
if
my
pockets
are
empty,
I
would
never
go
out
and
try
to
buy
a
new
car.
I
don't
care
how
badly
I
needed
it.
N
Well,
mr
chairman,
I'll
I'll,
take
it
let's
stab
at
that,
for
the
good
senator
I
you
know.
The
process
on
our
select
committee
is
to
take
recommendations
from
our
commission
and
who
receive
those
bits
of
information
from
our
districts
out
there,
48
of
them
and
it's
all
distilled
down,
and
it
comes
to
us
in
the
form
of
recommendations
from
a
commission.
N
The
select
committee
often
steps
above
and
beyond
what
that
recommendation
is,
and
that's
because
we
we
represent
the
state
of
wyoming,
and
we
have
come
across
several
projects
through
the
years
that
we
have
decided
as
a
select
committee,
to
recommend
to
our
colleagues
that
we
fund,
above
and
beyond
what
districts
even
have
recommended
or
that
the
commission
has
recommended.
I
use
saratoga
and
big
piney
and
pine
bluffs
and
sheridan.
N
N
As
senator
office
says,
we
decided
two
or
three
years
ago
upon
a
motion
of
the
select
committee,
but
it's
not
right
to
have
a
school,
the
size
of
riverton,
for
example,
that
does
not
have
an
auditorium.
It's
an
equity
issue.
Those
students
deserve
to
have
a
place
where
they
can
gather
a
place
where
they
can
perform
an
adequate
place
where
they
can
hold
a
big
classroom
environment,
for
example,
every
other
school
that
size
in
wyoming
hasn't.
N
So
the
select
committee
decided
to
include
it.
This
will
be
a
recommendation
this
bill,
which
includes
that
particular
project.
This
will
be
a
recommendation
that
we
will
carry
to
the
legislature.
It
starts
with
the
appropriations
committee
and
we
will
work
it
through
the
27
or
so
steps
that
it
takes
to
get
all
the
way
through
and
we'll
have
lots
of
conversations
in
the
house
and
senate
and
the
way
we
go.
So
I
hope
that
helps
that's
the
process.
D
A
R
R
B
M
R
Chairman
representative
walters
is
correct.
The
the
building
was
formerly
the
riverton
high
school,
so
it
was
a
full
high
school
at
one
point
in
time.
The
construction
techniques
that
it
was
put
together
with
we
don't
use
anymore,
and
it
did
include
a
lot
of
asbestos.
So
we
have
very
high
asbestos
costs
that
we
are
assuming
are
going
to
be
associated
with
this
project.
Another
one
of
the
issues
is,
they
don't
have
a
landfill
close
by.
So
everything
that
has
to
be
pulled
out
of
that
building
has
to
be
trucked
very
long
distances.
R
Then
there
is
an
another
issue
directly
behind
the
building.
There
is
currently
a
former
stadium.
It
was
called
tonkin
stadium
it.
It
is
a
big
depression
in
the
ground.
Part
of
the
funds
are
also
to
bring
that
back
up
to
grade
so
that
the
site
would
be
usable
for
an
additional
use
in
the
future.
So
there's
several
things
that
go
together
to
make
this
quite
costly.
A
N
N
This
building,
for
example,
if
we
choose
not
to
demolish
and
the
district,
would
have
say
an
opportunity
to
sell
it.
What
restrictions
are
on
that
building?
And
I
asked
that
because
up
the
river,
I
was
told
by
some
folks
that
when
they
sold
that
property
to
a
private
investor
or
whatever
that
that
they
couldn't
do
anything
with
that
property
for
10
years
and
and
I'm
talking
about
the
little
community
up
northwest
of
of
where
we're
talking
about
on
this
demolition.
But
can
you
help
me
with
that?
R
Of
mr
chairman,
in
response
to
senator
landon
we've
we've
had
a
number
of
changes
in
statute
regarding
disposition
of
buildings.
In
recent
years,
in
in
the
legislative
2020
session,
there
was
a
new
stipulation
that
was
added,
that
any
costs
that
are
recovered
in
the
in
the
sale
of
a
property
have
to
be
returned
to
cover
the
costs
associated
with
demolition.
R
This
project,
in
particular,
since
it
was
prior
to
1997
any
funds
that
they
did
recover
from
this.
If
it
was
not
demolished,
those
funds
would
go
to
the
district
statute,
does
encourage
them
to
utilize
them
for
facility
needs,
but
I
don't
think
there's
any
way.
You
know
that
that
could
be
locked
in,
but
it
does
encourage
that
use.
R
R
We
had
another
senator
a
few
years
ago,
who
spent
quite
a
bit
of
effort
trying
to
find
additional
uses
for
this
building,
of
which
none,
never
they
didn't
ever
really
materialize,
so
they
just
turned
out
not
really
to
be
options.
So
it's
not
for
lack
of
effort
because
they
have,
they
have
tried
so
follow
what
mr.
N
Chairman,
so
so
in
the
little
district
west
of
there
when
a
when
a
school
building
property
is
sold
like
that,
can
you
help
me
with
what
stipulations
we
put
on
at
the
state
level?
For
example,
we
say
district,
you
can
go
ahead
and
sell
your
building,
but
you
can't
do
something
with
that
property
for
a
given
amount
of
time.
I
can't
find
that
in
our
statutes.
R
N
R
That
issue,
mr
chairman,
I
and
senator
landon
did
also
bring
back
a
deed
restriction
that
was
identified
associated
with
this.
Building
that
we
are
discussing
right
now
in
demolition
and
the
deed
restriction
does
identify
that
if
it
is
not
continued
for
an
educational
use,
it
will
be
reverted
to
the
town
of
riverton.
So
if,
if
they
would
elect
to
dispose
the
property,
it
would
go
back
to
the
town
of
riverton.
R
D
R
D
Use
or
utility
for
the
the
stadium
afterwards
I
mean,
I
think,
back
to
to
our
our
dti
stadium.
When
we
took
down
the
high
school,
we
kept
the
stadium,
and
so
it
still
has
use
the
school
district
still
uses
it
as
a
matter
of
fact,
it's
available
for
the
city.
Also
in
a
partnership
there
I
can
see
knocking
down
the
school,
but
I'm
a
little
curious
about
why
we
need
to
regrade
that
that
football
field.
R
If
the
property
was
to
be
reutilized
in
the
future
by
the
school
district,
the
depression
that
that
the
stadium
does
create
would
make
it
unsuitable
for
an
additional
use,
so
it
would
be
anticipated
and
in
our
discussions
with
the
district,
have
included
the
maintaining
it
within
their
inventory
and
using
it
as
open
space
that
they
can
use
for
their
school
district.
But
in
the
case
of
a
future
need
it
would
be
a
very
good
property
for
a
future
facility.
If
that
need
did
occur,.
D
Well,
I
can
see
taking
out
anything,
that's
a
hazard,
but
but
again
I
I
just
pulled
up
a
picture
of
the
last
game
and
I'm
looking
at
the
field-
and
I
I
think
of
the
potential
utility
for
that
for
soccer
between
now
and
when
it
gets
used
again
or
anything
else.
It's
it's.
It's
a
great
appropriately
leveled,
appropriately
sized
grass
field
that
seems
like
between
now
and
when
a
school's
built
there
you'd
want
to
just
keep
it
as
a
as
a
field,
an
open
field,
it's
accessible,
so
doing
a
regrade
and
doing
groundwork.
R
Of
them,
mr
chairman,
the
understanding
of
what
they
would
intend
would
essentially
to
create
an
open
space,
of
which
case
I
can
imagine
if
they
had
a
need
for
soccer
fields
or
some
other
purpose.
They
could
utilize
it
for
that.
But
we
have
not
had
discussions
about
particular
use.
They
would
have
that.
Q
You
know
it's
only
close
to
that
elementary,
that's
right
there
as
far
as
them
being
close
enough
to
the
high
school
or
whatever
to
run
soccer
or
anything,
it
seems
like
it's
totally
out
of
position.
I'm
just
wondering
if
there's
other
options
where
we
wouldn't
have
to
be
putting
that
kind
of
money
into
it
at
least
right
now,.
R
Mr
chairman,
we
recognize
the
input
that
you're
giving
right
now
we
have
worked
through
the
remedy
that
we
we've
proposed
in
in
the
funding
with
the
school
district
and
it's
been
approved
by
the
commission
at
this
point
you
know
what
we're
talking
about
is
a
remedy,
that's
established,
and
that
doesn't
mean
the
conversations
can't
continue.
But
at
this
point
what's
been
presented
to,
you
is
a
remedy.
That's
been
presented
by
the
district
been
approved
by
the
commission.
A
N
M
M
I
would
move
that
we
change
on
line
23
the
dollar
amount
from
20.8
million
to
21
million,
even
and
then
remove
the
maximum
amounts
that
are
listed
on
lines,
six
through
16
of
page
eight
and
just
ch,
and
change
the
language
to
simply
say
that
there
would
be
21
million
dollars
available
for
the
component
level.
Projects
listed
below
in
priority
rank.
A
M
A
M
M
There
wasn't
enough
money
to
cover
all
of
the
projects,
and
so
now,
by
just
designating
an
amount
of
money
to
accomplish
the
most
projects
possible,
is
sort
of
the
new
norm
for
these
component
level
projects
and
by
listing
the
maximum
amount.
I
fear
we
don't
take
advantage
of
the
ability
to
get
the
best
pricing
available
for
the
projects.
A
D
I
don't
know
what
the
next
three
items
in
the
list
are,
but
it
doesn't
really
matter
I'll
make
a
motion
to
add
three
more
in
priority
to
the
list
so
that
we
actually
have
a
little
bit
of
excess
in
terms
of
the
possible
projects
if
they
save
money.
We'll
add
three
more
to
the
list.
They'll
have
the
opportunity
to
do
those
now.
If
they
don't
have
enough
money,
they
just
wouldn't
reach
those.
D
So
it
won't
change
the
expenditure
in
any
way,
but
it'll
give
more
flexibility
to
the
department
to
and
commission
to
get
more
work
done.
So
my
motion
is
effectively
on
page
8,
beginning
on
line
16
insert
the
next
three
priorities:
four
components
which
I
guess
would
be
12
13
and
14
whatever
those
may
be.
A
A
D
A
N
Mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee,
I
I
would
like
to
make
a
motion
there.
There
is
a
project,
that's
been
on
my
mind
for
a
couple
of
years,
and
this
is
one
that
I
would
make
there.
There
also
is
a
couple
of
schools
that
have
come
to
our
attention
up
in
my
neck
of
the
woods,
and
you
know
I
might
allow
that
to
be
a
a
second
motion,
or
we
can
include
all
three
of
these,
but
I'll
just
jump
in.
N
N
I
think
we're
in
the
design
phase
right
now
that
should
be
completed
somewhere
around
this
time
of
year
next
year,
perhaps
even
sooner
than
that,
if
we
were
to
put
go
ahead
with
this
construction
amount,
and
I
would
suggest
in
the
amendment
30
million
dollars
as
a
placeholder
for
this
k-12
school,
we
could.
We
could
go
right
into
a
bid
process
next
fall
and
be
ready
to
go
in
the
spring
of
23
22.
N
N
N
I
might
ask
for
some
help
from
representative
walters,
and
maybe
he
can
walk
you
through
those
two
schools.
I
don't
know
if
we
want
to
if
we
want
to
include
this
in
one
motion
on
the
list,
mr
chairman,
if
we
want
to
vote
on
the
ten
sleep
project
first
or
if
we
want
to
take
all
three,
but
I
would
I
would
ask
that
maybe
representative
walters
could
add
to
what
I've
told
you
about
two
schools.
D
Up
in
our
neighborhood
senator
rothfuss,
thanks
mr
mean
I
I
did
want
to
just
chat
about
ten
sleep
and
if
we
want
to
go
there
first
before
we
go
on
to
the
other
two,
let's,
let's
do
keep
them
separate.
Okay.
So,
with
regard
to
ten
sleep,
my
impression
was
that
we
were
going
down
that
path
as
expeditiously
and
directly
as
we
we
could
we
committed
to
that
was
that
two
years
ago.
D
A
E
Director,
vincent,
maybe
you
can
enlighten
us
well
I'll,
certainly
try.
So
mr
chair
and
senator
rothfuss
tensley
doesn't
come
through
our
department
to
commission
to
you
through
the
traditional
process.
It
doesn't
have
capacity,
it
doesn't
generate
the
building.
So
that's
why
we
don't
push
it
forward
as
as
qualifying
for
construction.
It
doesn't
mean
it's
not
a
good
project
and
doesn't
need
to
occur
it
just
doesn't.
It
doesn't
come
through
the
capacity
formulas
and
methodology
that
the
department
currently
has
and
probably
not
the
ones
that
would
be
proposed
as
well.
D
Yeah,
I
understand
that
that
we
were
the
impetus
a
few
years
for
it,
but
I
guess
what
I'll
ask
moving
forward
is
any
project
that
we
put
in
queue
needs
to
come
through
the
queue
and
and
we're
not
fought.
You
know
we
don't
have
an
independent
commission
or
department
that
is
for
lso
following
the
timelines
of
projects.
D
It
still
is
the
department
and
the
commission
that
is
following
the
timeline.
So
my
expectation
is
that
when
they
have
reached
conclusion
of
design,
they
are
queued,
they
will
build
and
I
need
to
know
what
the
timeline
is
for
when
we
need
to
fund
that
next
step,
so
that
we
are
not
the
source
delay
for
the
project.
D
So
my
question
is:
is
this
the
time
when
we
need
money
to
release
as
good
chairman
landon
was
discussing
or
or
do
we
have
enough
time
that
we
wouldn't
need
to
release
that?
But
now
that
I
think
about
it,
there's
got
to
be:
there's
got
to
either
be
more
design
funds
in
this
budget
or
there
has
to
be
building
funds
or
we're
doing
it
wrong.
E
So,
mr
chair
and
senator
rothfuss,
we
can
do
that.
We
can
certainly-
and
I
like
what
you're
saying
I
in
the
in
the
short
time
I've
been
here.
I
see
projects
that
we've
designed.
They
said
on
the
shelf
and
like
what's
next
step.
Either
they
lost
enrollment,
they
don't
qualify
in
capacity
or
or
they're
they
weren't
funded.
E
You
know,
and
our
concern
has
always
been
you
know
from
my
past
before
I
got
here,
that
the
clock
is
ticking,
where
those
plans
aren't
good
anymore
either
in
terms
of
code
changes
or
it's
not
the
way
we
educate.
So
I
just.
I
think
that
maybe
the
department's
position
before
is
that
we
use
the
the
tools
that
are
approved
to
the
commission
to
present,
but
I
I
don't
see
any
there's
nothing.
That's
coming
to
my
mind
right
now.
That
says
that
we
can't
do
a
white
paper
on.
E
N
Senator
landon,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Just
a
couple
of
thoughts
really
appreciate.
Senator
from
albany
county
he's
lived,
it
I
mean
we.
We
did
this
over
in
albany
county
and
set
one
on
the
shelf
and
to
the
gentleman
in
the
back
of
the
room.
They
know
what
I'm
talking
about.
That's
part
of
the
frustrations
that
we
run
into,
as
is
all
of
a
sudden.
N
That's
part
of
what
I'm
trying
to
prohibit
here.
There's.
We
know
that
we
want
this.
This
k-12
ten-sleep
school
built,
we've
already
approved
it.
Let's
get
the
construction
money
in
the
hopper
so
that
that
thing
can
expedite
and
be
on
the
ground,
someday
and-
and
I
think
it's
it's
really
one
of
the
most
appropriate
things
we
can
represent
to
our
appropriations
committee.
N
K
K
A
N
B
N
Major
maintenance
we're
still
going
to
be
in
the
ballpark
of
about
what
we
have
the
kinds
of
budgets
that
we've
operated
under
for
many
years,
but
yeah.
It's
it's
going
to
go
through
lots
of
steps.
We've
got
a
member
of
the
appropriations
committee
right
here
and
he
may
have
some
comments
on
that.
But
the
bottom
line
is
this:
is
our
recommendation.
M
And
so
then
it
really
puts
this
out
of
out
of
sync
with
the
regular
timing
that
would
come
in
and
so
by
delaying
until
the
supplemental
budget
of
next
year.
Then
we
end
up
putting
things
back,
that
16
to
18
months,
that
senator
landon
was
speaking
of,
and
it's
really
just
a
an
inconvenient
timing
factor
that
has
been
born
in
this
situation.
And
so
it
really
makes
sense
to
try
and
move
this
ahead
currently
so
that
we
keep
this
project
on
schedule
to
go
from
the
design
phase
right
into
the
construction
phase.
M
And
ultimately
it's
a
cost
savings
to
the
state
of
wyoming.
By
doing
this,
because
if
we
delay
the
project
until
the
supplemental
budget,
the
plans
will
then
have
to
be
reviewed.
A
second
time
which
costs
money,
plus
the
cost
of
materials
and
and
all
of
that
there
will
be
the
inflationary
factor
that
gets
added
onto
that
unnecessarily.
When
really
it's
just
a
timing
issue
as
to
why
this
wasn't
presented
sooner.
D
Rufus
thanks,
mr
chairman,
my
recollection,
was
the
cost
of
this
project
was
closer
to
20
million
dollars
for
the
remedy
that
we
had
seen
previously,
but
I
don't
I
was
trying
to
find
where
we
had
that
got
it
two
or
three
years
ago.
If
I'm
not
mistaken,
we
got
an
estimated
cost.
Do
we
have
a
better
estimate
than
than
30?
If
it's
20,
it
would
be
probably
better
to
put
something
closer
to
20
in
this
budget.
R
Mr
chairman,
in
in
response
to
senator
roffis's
question,
admittedly,
we
haven't
remodeled
the
budget
on
this
one.
I
I
just
quickly
pulled
up
what
we
had
and
I'm
going
to
tell
you.
We
haven't
touched
this
since
may
of
this
year
and
we
do
know
from
situations
we're
having
with
other
projects,
we're
having
difficulty
determining
what
what
values
are
appropriate
for
construction
at
this
point
in
time.
R
But
I
can
tell
you
at
the
point
in
time
when
we
modeled
it
last,
we
were
looking
at
a
number
in
the
27
and
a
half
million
dollar
range.
So
just
to
help
you
understand
what
that
is.
When,
when
you
funded
for
design,
you
did
not
fund
all
of
design.
You
funded
the
design
process,
getting
it
through.
The
document
phase,
there's
still
more
work
in
the
design
work
that
was
not
funded,
so
this
did
include
some
additional
funds
associated
with
design
that
were
not
given
originally
and
plus
the
construction
costs.
R
I
just
hesitate
in
giving
you
that
27
million
dollar
number
knowing
there's
a
lot.
We
don't
know
these
days,
so
30
million
is
definitely
more
comfortable
than
where
we
are.
But
I
can't
tell
you
if
that's
going
to
be
more
or
less
we're
going
through
the
exercise
on
other
projects
right
now,
we're
we're
guessing,
I'm
just
going
to
have
to
admit
we're
guessing.
N
Mr
chairman,
I
I
really
appreciate
mr
severson
thank
you
and
that's
not
a
bad
guess
on
my
part.
Was
it
so
yeah,
I'm
kind
of
happy
with
that
so,
but
I
think
I
wonder
if
we
could
word
the
motion
to
include
an
opportunity
that
that
we
could
put
a
more
specific
amount
in
there
or,
if
you
think,
that's
necessary
committee.
We
I'm
pretty
comfortable
with
with
a
placeholder
of
30
million.
N
We
know
that's
going
to
be
pretty
darn
ballpark
to
what
we're
going
to
have
to
have,
but
if
we
need
a
specific
amount,
I'm
looking
at
our
appropriations
colleague
down
here-
I
I
would
say
maybe
we
could
go
forward
with
30
and
then
maybe
get
a
report
along
the
way.
That
would
be
more
specific
if
that
makes
sense.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
You
guys
are
kind
of
losing
me.
I'm
new
on
the
committee
and
you
guys
are
talking
about
a
lot
of
things
that
you
know
a
lot
about
and
as
I
look
at
what's
going
on
portion
on
page
11
that
I
was
concerned
about
the
auditorium
now,
the
auditorium
is
pregnant,
with
twins,
senator
rothfuss
added
something
and
now
senator
landon
wants
to
add
something.
H
So
it's
just
getting
bigger
and
bigger
and
bigger
and
more
and
more
money
is
being
added
to
the
priority
I
get
where
you're
coming
from,
and
then
representative
walters
mentioned
something
like
we
need
to
do
this
now,
because
we've
done
studies
or
design
phase
and
money
we
spent
there
and
then
the
gentleman
from
the
maintenance
department
jumps
up
and
says.
Oh,
we
haven't
touched
that
since
may
so
you're
saying
maybe
20
and
a
half
million,
but
maybe
closer
to
30..
So
why
don't
we
just
put
in
50.
H
it's
getting
kind
of
convoluted
to
me
what's
going
on
here,
so
you're
kind
of
losing
me
on
this
bill.
The
more
people
that
have
been
here
the
longest,
keep
adding
things
at
this
last
moment
when
we're
just
about
ready
to
vote
on
it.
So
can
somebody
help
me
there
because
you
could
pass
it
out,
but
you
may
be
a
no
for
me
now
because,
like
I
say,
the
auditorium
has
twins
now
that
I
don't
know
what's
going
on
really.
A
D
So
as
we
work
through
and
approve
things
approve
projects,
then
the
project
continuities
is
kind
of
what
we're
talking
about
both
with
the
this
ten
sleep
school
and
to
some
degree,
the
high
school
auditorium.
Although
the
plans
for
that
are
probably
less
complicated
than
than
the
plans
that
we're
talking
about
for
for
the
school.
D
The
concern
that
chairman
walters
raised
was
the
idea
that,
if
you
delay-
and
you
add
too
much
of
the
gap
between
when
you
design
and
when
you
build,
you
end
up
having
to
design
again
and
we've
done
that
many
times,
which
is
why
you're
hearing
a
lot
of
sensitivity
to
it.
So
you
pay
for
the
design
and
you
pay
a
million
bucks
for
that
design.
And
then
you
pay
half
a
million
dollars
to
get
those
designers
to
come
back
and
make
sure
that
the
designs
are
still
good.
Because
codes
have
changed.
D
And
honestly,
I
can't
count
the
number
of
millions
of
dollars
we've
wasted
over
the
years
in
doing
just
that,
where
we
shelved
a
project
for
a
little
while
so
that
we
could
save
in
quotes
money
today
when
all
it
did
was
cost
the
state
cost
of
taxpayers.
It's
just
that
we
kicked
it
off
to
the
next
budget
and
we
wasted
money.
D
So
the
surprise
to
me
was
that
we
were
getting
to
the
point
where
we
were
going
to
lead
to
a
delay.
I
didn't
expect
that
to
be
the
case,
I
thought
we
were
on
track
and
and
so
that's
why
I'm
a
little
bit
surprised
that
we
didn't
have
appropriate
budget
in
place
for
that
already
in
this.
What
we're
hearing
is
that
it'll
delay
about
16
or
18
months,
that
project,
which
again
could
lead
to
additional
costs.
D
We
know
it'll
lead
to
inflation,
but
honestly
the
redesign
ends
up
just
being
truly
money
thrown
away
as
well.
So
the
the
view
that
I've
taken
on
since
I've
been
on
the
select
committee
is
once
we
start
a
project.
You
finish
the
project
or
we
waste
money,
and
ten
sleep
is
one
of
those
projects
that
falls
into
that
category.
D
As
to
other
projects,
honestly,
we've
got
the
auditorium,
we've
got
ten
sleep
and
everything
else
is
already
in
construction
phase
that
I
can
think
of
that.
We
have
that,
but
I
I
do
appreciate
the
director
going
back
and
and
checking
to
see
if
there's
anything
else.
That's
that's
that's
shelved
that
we
we've
overlooked
and
I
I
don't
know
what
those
would
be
to
be
quite
honest
and
maybe
other
members
of
the
committee
can
think
of
something
else.
D
That's
out
there
that
that
we
haven't
looked
at
or
talked
about,
but
those
are
the
there
was
a
motion
three
years
ago,
two
years
ago,
whenever
that
was
that
basically
put
three
of
these
projects
in
queue.
One
of
them
is
80,
complete
and
like
in
construction.
So
we've
already
got
that
cued
and
basically
concluded
10
sleep
was
further
behind
and
needed
design
and
then
the
high
school
auditorium
riverton
was
the
third
from
that
little
group.
H
A
K
Vice
chairman
brown,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
I
think
I
I
sitting
in
the
middle
it's
kind
of
interesting,
to
hear
both
sides
here,
because
I
I
simply
agree
with
both
sides.
It's
it's
a
very
interesting
concept
and
what
I
I
think
we
risk
doing
here
with
this
motion.
There
is
a.
I
don't
know
that
technically
we
even
made
a
motion
in
a
second.
K
T
K
We're
gonna
put
the
money
right
up
for
construction,
so
we
can
get
going
with
it.
It's
happened
in
this
community
and
it's
happened
in
a
few
other
communities
across
the
state.
It's
not
all
that
bad
to
go
ahead
and
move
on
to
that
position.
Maybe
this
is
a
good
precedence
to
keep
that
motion
moving
forward,
because
what
happens?
Is
we
pay
that
million
and
a
half
dollars?
K
K
K
It
puts
them
in
a
sticky
situation
of.
Why
not
me!
Why
was
I
pushed
back,
and
why
was
I
not
able
to
be
funded
the
way
that
we're
funding
10
sleep?
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
all
careful
in
what
we're
doing
here
and
setting
precedence.
So
you
know
as
we
move
forward.
Maybe
it's
something
this
committee
looks
at
next
interim
is
rewriting
that
that
language,
so
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
A
M
I
would
make
a
motion
for
12
million
dollars
for
two
schools
in
the
toronto
county
school
district,
and
these
are
elementary
schools
for
some
renovations
to
these
two
schools
and
really
what's
going
on
in
this.
If
I
have
a
second
I'll,
explain
I'll
save
the
committee
the
time
of
explanation,
if
there's
not
a
second,
we
have
a
second
senator
landon,
all
right,
very
good.
M
These
are
two
elementary
schools
in
natrona
county
that
are
lower
on
the
list
for
full
reconstruction,
but
a
the
district
has
done
some
preliminary
work
and
discovered
that
for
far
less
than
re
rebuilding
and
replacing
these
entire
schools,
they
can
renovate
these
schools,
as
they
have
done
in
a
couple
other
situations
within
the
district
and
extend
the
life
of
these
schools
for
25
to
30
years
minimum.
If
not
longer,
these
schools
have
good
structures,
good
bones
to
them.
M
If
you
will,
their
teaching
spaces
have
just
become
outdated,
have
lost
the
ability
to
be
good,
functional
teaching
spaces.
As
we
see
earlier
in
this
bill.
That's
before
us.
We
have
a
33
million
dollar
elementary
school
that
will
be
built
this
year
here
in
this
good
county
and
the
district
in
the
center
part
of
the
state
is
really
trying
to
avoid
more
of
these
30
plus
million
dollar
elementary
schools
by
upgrading
and
renovating
a
couple
of
the
existing
elementary
schools
that
are
in
place.
M
One
of
the
schools
had
the
school
for
the
deaf
attached
to
it
and
that
created
a
unique
situation
because
it
was
leased
space
for
the
school
for
the
deaf
as
leased
space.
It
was
not
eligible
for
major
maintenance
causing
that
portion
of
the
school
to
fall
further
into
disrepair,
because
the
lease
cost,
or
at
least
a
lease
amount,
wasn't
enough
to
cost
to
cover
the
major
maintenance
side
of
that,
so
that
that
was
a
uniqueness,
and
this
committee
is
probably
aware.
M
The
the
members
that
used
to
are
the
folks
that
used
to
attend
that
school
for
the
deaf
and
all
other
special
needs.
Students
are
now
fully
integrated
into
our
existing
classrooms
and
the
schools
where
they
would,
where
their
counterparts
attend
school,
and
so
the
need
for
that
that
school
for
the
deaf
is
no
longer
there
so
that
again,
these
are
good
buildings,
good
bones,
and
this
is
a
very
good
way
responsible
way
to
save
the
state
money
by
renovating
good
structures,
as
opposed
to
throwing
them
out
and
starting
over
with
new.
M
The
reason
we
come
before
you
or
mention
this
today
is
the
district,
has
put
the
money
in
to
get
these
projects
to
a
shovel
ready
stage
and
now
they'd
like
the
state
to
help
out
with
the
completion
of
the
construction
side
of
this,
these
projects
are
ready,
ready
to
go
and,
like
I
said
they,
they
set
a
33
million
dollar
full
replacements,
they're
six
million
dollars
to
get
25
or
30
years
minimum
of
life
out
of
these
buildings.
So
that's
kind
of
the
background
on
that
on.
N
Mr
chairman,
thank
you
and
I
I
appreciate
representative
walters,
giving
an
outline
of
this.
It
came
to
us
this
fall
and
you
know
one
of
the
reasons
I
seconded
is
that
boy
does
it
make
a
lot
of
sense
and,
and
it
is
one
of
those
facilities
by
the
way
pineview
that
did
have
some
planning
money.
I
did
have
some
design
money
involved
with
it
and
it
got
put
on
the
shelf
a
long
time
ago.
N
If
I
recall
that
that
school
for
the
deaf
that
is
attached
to
that
little
school
honestly
at
the
state
level,
we
should
do
something
with
that.
The
consideration
today
is
whether
or
not
we
want
to
begin
the
policy
discussion
on
on
these
two
schools
and
it
makes
sense
to
me
there
are
two
schools
up
in
the
toronto
county
that
someday
when
we
have
a
meeting
up
there.
I
hope
that
we
can
go
tour.
N
R
S
R
At
the
time
it
was
actually
funded
as
a
capacity
school
condition.
It
was
a
little
lower
on
the
condition
list,
but
the
the
school
itself
is,
I
believe,
it's
a
it's
a
2-3
section
school
and
I
think
the
new
design
was
a
four-five.
So
it's
it.
It
was
a
little
different
configuration
when
it
was
redesigned
but,
like
I
said
when
we
completed
100
drawings
in
2017,
it
was
shelved.
E
I'm
sorry
just
one
thing
on
the
on
the
pine
view
view
I
want
to
say
pine
bluffs
point
of
view
this
it's
interesting
you're
bringing
these
up
because
we've
had
these
conversations
in-house,
and
this,
mr
chair,
goes
to
what
senator
rothfuss
and
what
you
all
are
saying.
This
is
a
design
that,
due
to
the
methodologies
and
capacities,
is
shelved,
just
like
paula,
said
and
we've
been
discussing,
because
it's
out
there
at
that
verge
of
is
there
code
changes.
E
E
E
A
L
L
You
know
everyone.
We
have
we've
done
several
over
time,
which
is
has
added
25
to
30
years
of
life
to
a
facility.
The
issue
we
run
into
is:
there's
not
really
a
process
or
a
policy
out
there
that
allows
us
to
come
to
the
the
department
of
the
commission
to
do
that.
We
we've
done
a
lot
of
work
on
our
facilities
and
and
done
minor
renovations
using
major
maintenance
money.
L
You
know
major
maintenance.
We
have
50
buildings,
so
we
spread
it.
We're
spread
thin
and
we
try
to
do
the
best
we
can.
But
you
know
I
do
think
that's
an
opportunity
that
we
could
take
some
of
these
buildings
that
are
moving
up
the
list
and
knock
them
back
down
by
doing
this.
But
right
now
I
don't
know
a
process
that
I
can
do
that
other
than
potentially
I'm
going
to
my
local
legislator
or
somebody
on
the
committee
and
asking
if
it
can
be
added
at
the
end.
So,
okay.
N
N
L
Mr
chair,
if
I
may
yes
a
great
example
of
this,
is
you
know
when,
when
director
mccomey
was
was
a
head
of
the
department?
They
they
went
to
the
commission
and
they
did
what's
called
commission
directed
component
level
funding
and
they
brought
a
large
sum
to
this
body.
You
all
approved
it.
It
went
through
the
process
and
that
10
million
dollars
is
what
we
use
to
renovate
dylan
elementary.
You
know
that's
a
55
year
old
building
that
we're
going
to
get
another
30
years
out
of
it.
L
We
often
speak
to
the
fact
that
our
buildings
are
50-year
buildings,
but
we've
often
said:
if
we
can
do
a
half-life
renovation,
we
can
get
80
out
of
them
easily,
but
it
does
involve
more
than
boilers,
roofs
and
fire
suppression.
It
really
allows
you
to
bring
it
up
to
today's
standard,
whatever
that
may
be
in
the
future
for
instructional
delivery.
D
For
the
select
committee
okay,
mr
chairman,
I
think
it
would
take
some
statutory
revision
to
create
a
process
for
these
renovations.
These
midlife
renovations,
as
anything
other
than
how
we're
doing
it
right
now,
which
is
by
motion
the
budget.
But
honestly,
it
would
probably
be
the
most
valuable
thing
we
could
do
at
this
point
in
time.
D
Unfortunately,
that
you
know
it's
not
like
you
can
throw
that
onto
a
component
list
and
if
it
just
shows
up,
as
you
know,
if
you're
a
point,
two
five
or
something
and
you
wanna
shift
it
down
to
a
point,
one
five
then
you're
just
gonna
wait
five,
six,
seven
ten
years
or
whatever,
until
you
erode
your
quality
to
get
high
enough
on
the
list,
so
that
you
can
then
have
a
remedy
and
that
doesn't
make
any
sense
from
the
state's
perspective.
So
this
is
a
good
idea.
This
is
something
we
should
really
be
pursuing.
D
Maybe
we
can
contemplate
what
those
changes
would
look
like
work
with
staff
for
the
budget
session
and
try
and
get
everyone
to
give
some
thought
to
how
we
would
put
that
together.
If
we
don't
have
another
select
committee
meeting,
then
we
might
just
have
to
look
at
a
one-off.
We
can
also
study
it
during
the
next
interim,
but
it
might
not
be
bad
to
try
and
focus
on
getting
something
on
the
books.
But
honestly,
I'm
certainly
supportive
of
the
idea
of
of
this
motion
of
getting
this
in
the
queue
it'll
get.
D
Some
attention
get
some
more
discussion
at
the
very
least,
I
don't
know
how
we
all
end
up
voting
on
it
in
the
end
if
it
goes
to
the
session,
but
if
we
can,
if
we
can
get
35
more
years
out
of
two
schools
for
10
million
dollars,
that
beats
everything
else,
we've
done
today,
probably
all
right.
Thank
you,
mr
maggie
senator.
A
You
know
I
I
I
don't
really
have
an,
I
think.
That's
actually
the
way
to
go.
My
question
is
a
question
of
equity
and
might
I
have
the
director
and
paul?
Maybe
would
you
come
forward
again?
What
process
does
the
department
or
the
commission
have,
for?
I
imagine,
there's
a
plethora
of
schools
in
in
this
very
same
boat.
I
know
we
have
a
bunch
of
mermaid
one,
but
I'm
sure
there's
all
over
the
the
state
where
we
could
look
at
these
older
schools
and
suggest
a
renovation
to
extend
their
life.
A
But
it
seems
to
me
that
that
we're
taking
two
schools
here,
just
because
we
have
two
representative
legislators
from
the
district
I
didn't-
and
no
one
from
the
district-
there
is
asking
for
this-
that
I
know
of
how
are
we
to
make
this
equitable?
Are
we
just
going
to
pick
these
two
projects?
I
mean
it's
a
good
idea.
I
really
think
we
need
to
spend
our
money
wisely.
This
way.
The
question
is
to
me
a
question
of
equity.
R
What
occurred
with
laramie
one
in
particular.
Is
they
identified
that
if
they
could
cluster
even
the
dollars
that
they
were
given
into
a
particular
school,
which
is
what
is
happening
with
building
right
now,
they
could
essentially
refresh
that
school.
So
we
started
the
process
before
by
by
identifying
those
fca
scores
and
and
essentially
funding
the
needs
based
on
the
assessments.
R
Our
assessment
is
quite
quite
aged
at
this
point
in
time
and
and
the
dollars
were
presented
to
the
commission,
they
approved
this
body
approved
the
legislature
approved.
So
it's
a
version
of
that
that
would
work
because
we
could
identify
it
essentially
system
by
system
and
cluster
those
together
to
do
improvements
for
schools
that
have
more
of
those
improvements
that
are
required,
because
sometimes
it's
it's
clear
you
you
fix
the
roof
on
a
school
and
it
doesn't
have
other
needs,
but
then
there's
other
schools
where
those
needs
there's
there's
many
of
them.
N
E
E
So,
in
the
five
months
I've
been
here,
this
is
the
healthiest
conversation
that
I've
been
part
of.
I
don't
know
where
this
goes
or
how
it
rolls
out,
but
I'm
seeing
things
that
don't
coincide
with
my
30
years
of
background
in
this
area.
I
we
let
scores,
go
down
and
don't
do
work
until
it
qualifies
for
something
we
moth
ball.
We
demolish,
because
we
have
too
much
square
footage
and
we
do
these
things.
E
That,
for
me,
are
perverse
logic,
but
it
fits
within
our
system
and
our
confines,
because
that's
what
we
have
right
now
and-
and
it
didn't
make
sense
to
me
in
general-
and
it
doesn't
win
an
elementary
school
from
a
few
years
ago-
it's
15
million,
and
now
it
might
be
30
million.
So
all
the
more
of
the
preservation
of
the
existing
building,
where
I
come
from
land
is
scarce,
and
so
therefore
new
buildings
are
scarce.
E
You
have
to
take
care
of
that
existing
building
all
along
the
way
and
the
further
you
don't
it
slips
from
component
to
major
maintenance
or
major
maintenance.
Isn't
enough,
then
we
talk
about
renovation,
but
it's
truly,
not
if
there's
a
gap
where
it
falls
in
there
you're
talking
about
reconstruction,
which
is
a
lot
deeper
than
renovation.
E
You
know
and
is
all
that's
still
better
than
a
brand
new
school,
possibly
if
it
still
meets
educational
requirements.
So,
looking
at
this
as
a
whole
and
and
deciding
is
this
the
way
we
should
go,
it's
going
to
create
more
dollars
somewhere,
but
I
think
the
dollars
that
you
do
spend
are
going
to
be
spent
in
a
better
way,
we're
not
going
to
design
and
not
construct
we're
not
going
to
let
something
fall
into
a
greater
disrepair.
E
We
have
to
do
more,
it's
that
win
the
battle
or
won
the
war
and
to
me
it's
a
healthy
conversation
and
I'll
just
throw
one
in
there.
Also
that
that
I
hope
I
don't
light
a
fuse,
but
I
don't
understand
at
some
point
in
time
we
built
a
building.
Let's
just
say
it's
a
hundred
thousand
square
feet
and
there's
only
kids
in
there
right
now
to
the
tune
of
justifying
60
000
square
feet.
E
So
apparently,
we
use
capacity
to
generate
major
maintenance
dollars
and
I
don't
understand
that
because
the
building
is
still
100,
000
square
feet,
and
so
these
are
things
I'd
love
to
see
it
discussed
and
brought
up
because-
and
we
get
here
over
30
40
years
through
a
lot
of
incremental
laws
and
rules
that
made
a
lot
of
good
sense
at
the
time.
But
when
you
look
at
it
all
and
then
you
back
map
it
or
you
bring
in
brand
new
eyes
from
the
outside
they're
they're
they're
questions
that
keep
me
up
at
night.
E
C
I
think
things
can
come
in
and
do
some
remodel
reconstruction
and
eliminate
modulars,
provide
security,
entrances
all
those
things
and
then
get
the
newest
technology
like
these
other
new
schools
around
the
state
have
similar
story
with
evansville
and
that
building
was
built.
I
think
in
1965,
so
and
when
you
look
at
the
cost
of
these
new
elementaries,
these
elementaries
now
would
cost
15
to
20
million.
C
So
I
think
it's
really.
You
know
it's
a
pennywise
pound
foolish
deal
and-
and
we've
done
a
lot
of
this
over
the
years,
I
think
I'm
the
longest
serving
member
now
school
facilities
been
on
this,
for
you
know
about
15
years,
we've
done
a
lot
of
these
over
the
years,
because,
although
our
process
is
pretty
good
and
we
continue
to
improve
it,
there's
these
gaps
where
people
fall
in
in
kind
of
the
crack
and
and
so
what
does
the
district
have?
To
do?
I
mean
use
major
maintenance
news.
C
General
fund
work,
the
process,
and
so
that's
really
what
we're
trying
to
do
in
it.
For
these
couple,
schools
right
here
so
encourage
the
committee's
support
of
this
and
then
continuing
as
we
move
forward
in
the
next
interim
to
keep
working.
This
idea,
we'd
save
the
state
money
and
do
some
real
good
so
and
again,
300
kids
in
each
one
of
these,
that's
larger
than
some
of
the
k-12
well
with
the
k-12
building,
we're
building
right
now
intensely
and
so
there's
a
lot
of
customers
here
that
we're
trying
to
serve
so.
C
Q
Q
The
idea,
if
it's
a
sound
building
that
can
be
brought
up-
and
we
can
save
money,
I
think,
is
a
twofold
win
for
us
because
number
one
we're
saving
the
money
number
two
we're
preserving
the
integrity
of
that
in
the
community
and
I
think,
that's
very
important.
I
know
we
have
one
in
pal,
that's
in
the
same
situation
and
it's
been
worked
on
to
where
it's
in
pretty
good
shape,
and
I
don't
know
that
anybody
would
say
that
it's
worse
off
than
the
two
new
ones
that
we
have
so.
D
D
Theoretically,
if
we
fully
funded
major
maintenance,
we
wouldn't
have
to
have
this
conversation
about
providing
additional
funds
right
now
for
a
renovation,
because
a
fully
funded
major
maintenance
system
contemplates
the
fact
that
you
would
have
to
do
these
types
of
renovation
and
we
have
chronically
underfunded
it
between
a
half
percent
and
a
full
percent
for
as
long
as
I've
been
in
the
legislature.
So
here
we
are
with
a
request
for
additional
funds
for
renovation
and
and
again,
I
think
it's
probably
a
perfectly
reasonable
investment
getting
to
the
idea
of
trying
to
put
forward
a
process.
D
I
think
we
we
can
do
these
two
things.
At
the
same
time,
try
try
to
move
some
things
down
this
path.
Maybe,
as
we
discuss
it,
maybe
we
should
be
bringing
some
more
dollars
to
provide
funding
for
other
projects
around
the
state
for
renovation.
That's
something
we
can
look
at
later.
It's
too
bad.
We
don't
have
one
more
meeting
of
the
select
committee
to
explore
this
further,
but
we
kind
of
have
the
hand
we're
dealt
right
now.
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
work
ahead
on
this
process,
though
that
we
need
to
get
done.
K
K
So
what
I
fear
about
going
forward
and
approving
this
motion
is
that
we
we
have
set
the
precedence
that
all
you
need
to
do
is
find
somebody
to
put
in
the
select
school
facilities
interim
committee
and
have
them
come
forward
and
and
put
an
amendment
to
the
budget
bill
and
have
them
come
forward
and
put
it
there
and
explain
why,
and
hopefully
they
can
convince
your
committee
to
carry
their
message
forward
and
approve
these
major
renovations.
If
not
reconstruction
processes,
I
don't
find
that
to
be
fair
and
equitable.
K
I
don't
what
I
am
concerned
about
is
that
sets
a
dangerous
precedence
that
now
the
this
committee,
as
opposed
to
looking
at
things
on
a
holistic
scale
and
recognizing
that
the
whole
state
is
what
we
are
responsible
for.
We
are
then
only
fighting
for
our
individual
districts
and
those
that
we
represent
locally
instead
of
globally,
and
I
don't
think
that's
a
good
situation
for
us
to
be
put
in.
K
I
think
I
will
be
voting
no
on
this
particular
motion
and
what
I
do
believe
we
need
to
address,
and
I
agree
with
senator
office
on
this.
We
currently
have
a
need
that
needs
to
be
addressed.
We
don't
have
the
time
to
do
it.
This
is
something
that
needs
to
be
addressed,
and
I've
already
asked
tanya
to
take
down
notes
that
this
is
something
we
address
in
the
next
interim
work.
I
feel
that
approving
this
particular
situation
right
now
is
it's
an
unfair
and
undue
situation
to
the
rest
of
the
school
districts.
K
K
And
so
I
would
recommend
that
you
know
I'm
gonna
ask
for
a
no
vote
and
then
let's
work
on
this
as
a
committee
and
find
a
solution
for
this
statutorily
that
you
know
the
that
the
districts
understand
and
also
it
sounds
like
the
the
or
the
department
understands
as
well.
So
there's
clearly
a
need-
and
I
I
understand
the
need
up
in
detroit
county
right
now,
but
I
can
tell
you
right
now.
K
I
know
that
if
I
were
to
ask
mr
bartlett
to
come
forward,
he
could
probably
list
three
or
four
district
priorities
that
he'd
like
six
or
seven
million
dollars,
a
piece
for
as
well,
and
I'm
not
going
to
do
that.
I'm
not
going
to
blow
this
budget
any
further
than
it
already
is.
Approving
this
particular
motion
puts
us
up
over
100
million
dollars,
pulling
out
a
general
fund
to
support
these
these
issues,
and
I
just
won't
support
that.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
N
N
I
agree
to
second
this
issue
because
it
is
unique
and
when
it
came
to
us
as
projects
that
had
already
been
worked
on
and
shovel
ready,
I
thought
it
was
really
appropriate
that
we
have
this
conversation
and-
and
I
really
have
appreciated
it.
I
think
it's
good.
I
like
the
precedent
that
this
would
set,
because
I
agree
with
the
co-chairman.
I
think
I
think
this
district,
I
think,
there's
a
lot
of
districts
out
there
that
could
benefit
from
this
kind
of
policy.
If
we
were
to
establish
it.
N
I
agree
with
senator
roethlis,
I
think,
there's
a
real
opportunity
here,
as
we
work
into
this
next
interim
to
maybe
even
add
a
new
fold
to
the
way
we
evaluate
these
schools
out
there.
It
would
be
very
valuable
to
us
to
hold
these
up
as
an
example
and
say
we're
looking
for
other
schools
like
this,
that
that
we
can
partner
with
our
districts
rather
than
rolling
in
over
the
top
of
districts
or
putting
a
stop
sign
up.
N
This
is
a
good
time.
You
know
I
think,
to
to
try
this
out
and
get
it
going.
We
can.
We
can
put
the
details
to
any
policy
and
any
list
as
we
go
forward,
but
why
stop
this?
When
we've
got
a
beautiful
opportunity
where
that
school,
for
the
deaf
used
to
sit?
That's
a
state
property.
We've
got
to
do
something
with
it.
It's
been
designed
for
years
and
and
the
school
district
up
there
comes
up
with
a
better
way
of
of
taking
care
of
that
school
building.
N
A
A
These
projects
are
shovel
ready
and,
and
I'm
I'm
told
by
the
department
that
it's
not
even
what
they
have
on
their,
they
have
a
whole
rebuild
in
their
in
in
their
books,
and
so
it
sounds
like
the
dis.
The
district
hasn't
been
talking
to
the
department
about
these
renovations,
they're
clueless
and
then
all
of
a
sudden,
we
we
get,
you
know
a
political
solution.
I
think
it's
a
good
solution.
I
don't
you
know.
I
believe
this
is
how
we
need
to
tackle
all
these
projects.
A
We
need
to
put
renovation
monies,
so
we
don't
have
to
build
new
schools.
We
need
to
extend
the
lives
of
these
buildings
completely
agree,
but
I'm
really
disheartened
on
how
we're
doing
this.
This
is
just
not
the
way
to
do
it.
Okay,
so
hopefully
you
know
if,
if
this
passes,
you
know
we'll
take
care
of
these
two
projects,
but
hopefully
that
will.
A
This
will
be
our
cue
to
work,
something
out
where
we
don't
have
to
do
this
anymore,
that
we
identify
all
these
schools
prior
as
as
senator
office
mentioned,
and
and
we
we
we,
we
come
to
an
agreement
long
before
you
know
he
gets
sprung
on
in
an
amendment
in
a
budget
bill.
So
anyhow,
just
my
last
two
words.
So
that
being
said,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
all
those
opposed.
No,
okay,
all
those
in
favor
raise
your
hands
count
three
four
and
we
have
five.
A
D
D
We
can
do
better
than
kick
it
to
next
interim.
This
last
motion
would
have
would
have
kept
some
momentum
behind
it,
but
before
we
before
we
move
on,
does
anyone
have
any
ideas
of
what
they
would
support
for
a
way
we
could
do
that
and
an
idea
would
be
to
put
some
money
in
for
renovation
that
had
no
schools
attached
to
it.
D
Where
districts
could
come
in
and
say,
hey
we'd
like
to
renovate,
we
could
require
a
portional
match
of
internal
major
maintenance
funds,
where
you
know
we'll
match
75
25
on
a
pool
of
15
million
or
something
like
I
don't
know
just
making
things
up
right
now,
so
that
we
can
get
this
this
process
going.
I'm
sure
it
wouldn't
be
terribly
difficult
for
us
to
come
up
with
a
few
schools
around
the
state.
We
know
that
the
trona
one
has
has
a
couple.
D
I
wouldn't
be
surprised
if
laramie
has
some
campbell
probably
has
some
sweet.
Water
probably
has
some.
I
did.
I
don't
think
we'd
be
challenged
to
get
a
preliminary
list.
It
would
not
be
the
exhaustive
list
that
I
think
we
need,
but
again
this
is
a
good
investment
and
I'd
be
interested
to
hear
from
a
good
representative,
mr
co-chairman
and
you,
mr
chairman,
on
on
what
a
process
could
look
like
where
we
could
get
something
into
this
budget
as
a
proposal
that
two
of
you
would
feel
comfortable
with
yeah.
A
A
If
we
want
to
pass
an
amendment
with
a
dollar
amount
and
let
districts
present
to
the
to
the
department,
a
list,
you
know,
apply
proposals
these
two
projects
as
well.
You
know
they'll,
probably
be
high
on
the
list.
I
would
imagine,
especially
if
they're
shovel
ready
but
allow
a
process
where
they
can
be
evaluated
by
somebody
rather
than
us
in
in
15
minutes
of
committee
meetings.
A
K
Vice
chairman
brown
first,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
like
the
idea.
What
I
also
don't
want
to
do
is
a
knee-jerk
reaction
in
the
process
to
try
to
keep
the
momentum
going.
I'm
you
know.
My
trepidation
comes
from
hearing
earlier
in
the
meeting
that
we
had
everybody
in
the
department
ready
to
go
for
two
days
and
now
we're
back
down
to
missing
another
employee.
K
It
should
go
through
a
a
fairly
large
process.
In
my
opinion,
I
think
it's
a
much
deeper
issue
that
I
think
we
need
more
than
just
this
time
to
do.
I
do
agree,
put
50
60
million
dollars
great,
that
that
satisfies
a
lot
of
school
districts
that
want
to
do
this
kind
of
work,
but
there's
no
mechanism
for
it
right
now.
We've
had
these
brought
forward.
I
could
again.
I
can
certainly
attest
that
if
I
asked
mr
bartlett
to
come
forward,
he
would
be
able
to
drop.
K
K
Those
two
districts
have
stayed
up
30
of
the
50
million
dollars
that
that's
a
tough
tough
pill
for
me
to
swallow
when
our
responsibility
falls
to
the
rest
of
the
entire
state
and
some
of
these
other
schools
that
need
busiest
assistance
as
well.
So
I
don't
have
the
answer
right
now.
I
I
believe
it's
a.
It
is
a
problem
and
I
always
try
to
come
to
the
the
table
with
solutions.
Q
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
I
agree
with
the
co-chairman
I
I'm
concerned
of
throwing
it
on
their
shoulders
without
some
kind
of
how
do
we
prepare?
Where
have
you
got
anything
already,
which
I
don't
think
they
would
right
now
prepared
to
say
here's
the
set
or
here's
what
we
work
with.
I
think
we
better
make
sure
that
we
don't
go
to
the
old
saying
get
the
cart
before
the
horse
was,
let's
make
sure
we.
Q
This
is
a
good
idea
and
I
think
it's
got
merit
for
the
entire
state,
I'm
not
against
it,
but
I
still
think,
let's
not
jump
too
quickly.
Let's
make
sure
that
we've
got
a
well
set
up
plan
that
we
can
go
forward
with
that.
In
the
end,
everybody
has
the
same
chances
and
everybody
has
the
equity
of
what
the
evaluation
is
rather
than
some
are
ready.
Now
some
are
not
yeah.
I
just
think
we
got
to
be
a
little
careful,
senator.