Audit shows schools owed money for water lines

By Emily Richmond

Monday, Sept. 22, 2003 | 11:14 a.m.

The Clark County School District is owed $187,580 from the Las Vegas Valley Water District, a reimbursement that's gone unclaimed for two years, according to a new audit of the district's $3.5 billion capital improvement plan.

As many as 30 reimbursements are still outstanding for school construction projects between November 1998 and July, according to an outside audit prepared by accountant Curtis Matthews of MossAdams LLP in Vancouver, Wash., at the school district's request.

Walt Rulffes, deputy superintendent of operations for the school district, said Friday that 11 of the reimbursements are already being sought. The total amount owed to the district from the various projects was not immediately available.

When the school district has been the first to install utilities in remote areas, there have been missed opportunities to collect reimbursements, the audit said.

Certain utility agreements reviewed as part of the audit call for the school district to be compensated as future developers piggyback on the utility lines put in for schools.

The $187,580 reimbursement due from the Las Vegas Valley Water District was part of a signed contract for water line upgrades at Lucille Rogers Elementary School, which opened in August 2001, the audit said.

Water district spokesman Vince Alberta said this morning his agency has agreements with developers to reimburse them if they pay to extend facilities outside the system, once others connect onto that extended line. But, he said, there is a matter of timing in the reimbursements.

"It would be surprising if the school district is owed this money, but if they are, certainly we will make it right," Alberta said.

E. Louis Overstreet, executive director of the Urban Chamber of Commerce and a frequent critic of the school district's construction program, said he was troubled by the failure to claim reimbursements.

"That's money that belongs in the schools," said Overstreet, who has applied for the position of assistant superintendent of the school district's facilities division, said. "We keep hearing (the Clark County School District) say they're broke, and they have who knows how much floating around out there."

The $3.5 billion construction program earned a generally favorable review in the audit, although several recommendations were made for improving oversight and reducing cost overruns.

The audits findings included:

"In the press of time to keep school construction on schedule, sometimes the paperwork has lagged behind the decision process," Rulffes said. "The auditors' areas of concerns are our areas of concern as well."

The audit praised the school district's "good practices," including its competitive bidding process for new contracts. The district's projects have generally been on time and on budget, the audit found.

Some of the recommendations have already been implemented, including a new tracking system for job site change orders, according to the audit.

"It's more good news than not, and some of the suggestions have already been implemented," said Fred Smith, construction manager for the district.

The school district is about two-thirds of the way through the 1998 bond program to build 88 schools, with 12 new campuses opened in August and another 14 slated for next fall.

A 2001 audit of the facilities division, also completed by Matthews, determined that staffing levels in Clark County were "significantly lower" than in other school districts, requiring more reliance on outside -- and expensive -- contractors. The district could have saved more than $4.5 million by having its own employees complete the work, the audit concluded.

In March 2002 the Clark County School Board approved phasing in 106 new facilities staff positions, based in part on Matthews' recommendations.

"We're better staffed now and the people we brought on 14 months ago are becoming much more productive," Rulffes said. "I'd say we're starting to catch up to the learning curve."

The district's costs per square foot were $68 for elementary schools, $36 for middle schools and $47 for high schools. While the middle and high school costs were comparable with other regions, Clark County's elementary schools were more costly.

The audit concluded the higher price tag for elementary schools could be attributed in part to the so-called "first-in" costs, which occur in underdeveloped areas where the district must put in the water, sewer and power lines as well as roads. The school district's own technological and structural demands also increase the initial cost but will "result in lower lifetime cost for the school," the audit concluded.

The Clark County School Board will review the audit today during a school facilities work session. Board members will also discuss which five campuses will next be slated for replacement under the capital improvement plan.