Brett Johnson- Aurora Public Schools BEST Slides

Statute Guidelines State statute outlines the following guidance for approving projects:  Health and safety at existing facilities, security, incorporating security into facilities Second subset of technology: Hardware, devices, other necessary components Projects that relieve overcrowding All other projects Other considerations: Matching contribution being provided in excess of or less than minimum Whether applicant has been placed on financial watch by CDE Overall condition of applicant’s existing facilities Project cost per pupil affected by proposed project Project life cycle Public school facility's facility condition (FCI) The applicant’s ability to help itself, including available bonding capacity

Based on HB1055, the cap has increased to $52 Based on HB1055, the cap has increased to $52.5m in 2019-20 and $55m in 2020-21. This means roughly $160m for this year’s financed projects and no more than $90m next year

Brainstorming Questions Instead of identifying a cash grant or a COP-financed matching grant, should there be additional grant types? Cash-funded state match to offset local bond project Life cycle-oriented grants (offering a new roof and repairs to extend the life of a current building versus financing a $60m brand new building) Are BEST state-financed matches too big for some projects?  What is the value of a BEST grant to a community and its chances of passing an election? And could a smaller BEST grant still provide that same value? Asset maintenance component of buildings Can we break projects up? School districts have started asking for the moon and see how much they can get Board does not feel it has the flexibility to parse out more worthy components of a proposed project