Hi, good morning everyone online and in the room. We have just made a quorum and on time so we will get started. Uh we'll start with our attendance please Alexander. >> Okay, do the room first.
>> I'm sorry. Martis Canyon facilities construction. David Brooks, facilities construction. >> Holly Han, Office of the General Council. >> Michael Tubio, facilities construction. >> David Dolan, uh, facilities management. David, >> Barbara Myers, construction.
Michael >> over here. Julie Edwards ALR group >> Enterprises representing Cisco >> James Campbellie Construction Associates. Go ahead. >> Okay. Yeah, you can do online
>> okay >> Jim Alasher >> present >> Kevin Wilkinson >> present Ravis Michael Gilan present. Tom Burgerer >> yes. >> Virginia Parish
>> here. Chris Tommpkins >> here. >> Is that all of them? I think so. >> Yeah. >> Martis, is that everybody? >> Yeah, we've got it. That was >> Yep. Yeah, we already had Kevin Roff.
>> Okay, thank you all. Um, I don't have anything to report except that uh announcement that January 29th and 30th my seminal ridge program will move house number 12 out the south. >> Yay. >> And then they they've already started I
think house number 13 even though we don't know where it's going yet. >> Congratulations. >> Yep. Thank you. That's all I had to report. >> Okay. If I can if you will afford me the uh a moment of clarity. I I um I I want to start off the meeting. Um I hope
everyone had a um happy holiday season. Um while while it was good to get away, um I I do want to um express our deepest sympathies and sadness at the unfortunate passing of one of our dear
friends and colleagues, uh Chris Garrison. Chris passed away u relatively suddenly. um over the winter break and um we're um
we're we're very sad. Uh unfortunately, um Chris Chris is a very private uh person and um I while I know that everyone will want to express their their deepest condolences to her and her family, um we
are unaware of any uh uh family uh commemoration, but I will um let everyone know that um Chris uh the school district. Chris meant the world to the school district and uh we will be
commemorating her um on uh January 21st at 3 p.m. at Fulton Holland. There will be a celebration of life ceremony that's two hours before the board meeting uh next Wednesday. Um and uh all are
welcome to join us and um and and celebrate the uh the wonderful uh the wonderful nature that was Chris. We will all miss her immensely. >> May I May I May I add my condolences? I'm I'm totally shocked by this news. I
was out of town and I I am speechless. Chris was such a wonderful wonderful person. um was really supportive of me when when my husband passed away. I'm I'm speechless. I Please add my sympathies
um in any way I possibly can. Thank you. >> And could you send us an email or something regarding that date again? >> We we absolutely will. Thank you, Mr. Burger. Yes. Um we will absolutely send something out to um all the court members u advising of that uh
celebration of life. Um, and again, I'm I'm terribly sorry to have brought that news forward, but as as Miss Ferris uh expressed, she meant the world to all of us. She was such an incredible part of this school district for so many years.
Um, she will be uh greatly missed. In addition, um, a little more news of sadness was um, our uh, board vice chair uh, Mr. Matthew Lane. His uh wife Susan
Lane also passed away uh very recently suddenly. Um and we'd like to express our deepest condolences to him and his family as well. >> And can you add Cork's condolences to to both of these?
>> Absolutely. Thank you very much, Miss Ferris. I I apologize for the nature in which to bring it up and that many of you may not have known or some of you may not have known but um we do want to you know um honor our dear friend.
>> Okay. Um we'll move on with this meeting and uh anyone with a conflict of interest today or have been approached by a lobbyist for anything we're going to discuss? Any court members? All right. Hearing none. Any changes to
the agenda by anyone? Accepted. Public comments. Public comments. Not hearing any comments. Consent agenda. Get down on the consent agenda. >> If I can uh if I can make a comment for
this before we get into the consent agenda. I do want to give a sense of clarity to the clerk members. I know you're all looking at the agenda and wondering how come there are only PC items this month and there are no FC
items. Um I need to let everyone know this is nothing more than the fact that we did not have anything that met the standards on the FC items to go forward this month. We did have a shorter month
um this month between last meeting and this one. So that extra week probably had a little something to do with it. Um, but in fact, uh, I know FC1 has always been a concern. These are the delegated authority approvals. Well, we had reviewed staff, uh, I think I've
we've gone through this with you before. Staff reviews the agenda items, uh, the, uh, change orders and such beforehand to make sure that they're justified, that they meet all the uh, uh, criteria necessary to go forward. In fact, we
reviewed four this past month and not one of them met our satisfaction. That's the senior staff's satisfaction. So, it turned out that we basically realized we have to um reject all four of them, make them go back and fix them
and then bring them back. So, they will come back next month. So, that's the only reason why there are no FC items whatsoever this month. Nothing more. you next. And unfortunately, as I mentioned, Mr. Porter Moment ago, next month may end up having more just because the ones
that we didn't like this month, you'll see them next month, plus a whole slew of others. So, >> yeah, I had I had raised that to Dave because I immediately made the incorrect assumption that we weren't seeing FC1 because of the new policy that removes,
you know, the the approval or review by Cork. And fortunately, that was not the case. It was just a matter of timing and nicely to know that staff kicked them out before we would have kicked them out. >> All right, now we're ready for consent
agenda. PC1, PC2, PC3, PC4, PC5, EC6. I wanted that one pulled. >> Yay. Somebody pulled one.
Exactly. All right. Didn't you want to give us your motion? >> Well, first I want to say I thought I had bingo, but then you had to go and pull one. Um I move those items not pulled to go forward without objection. >> Second.
>> A second. France seconded it. Um I guess there's no discussion. Go ahead. Maris and please >> Alexander. >> Yes. >> Porter. >> Yes. Makabu. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> John Tasher. >> Yes. >> Lisa Ravis. >> Yes. >> Michael Gelfin. >> Yes. >> Michael Guido. >> Yes. >> Tom Burger. >> Yes. >> Virginia Parish.
>> Yes. >> Wow. That was a dominant yes. that was not made far. >> Okay. Um, my question is really kind of curiosity for purchasing. Um, I think as long as I've done Cork, I've never seen
17 design firms interested in a $3.8 million job. Is there kind of something happening out there that there's no work and everybody wants to get work where it is? We've never had 17 firms.
>> Yeah, I there there is interest in our projects right now for sure on the architect side. Um we still have the continuing contracts and we're awarding through there, but those are tend to be much smaller. So 3.8 is
>> yeah interesting. And as you're probably aware, you know, we've we've done a bit of our own outreach recently, our opex pres um forum. We were talking about all the work that's coming up. We have the referendum that got patented on 24 referendum. And I I suspect a lot of
these firms are saying, "I want to make sure I'm involved. I want to make sure I'm I'm on the table when those big those other projects are rolling out." >> That's a good point. We have new a lot of new firms that are >> I noticed that from the name, too. That's mentioning. Yeah, that's a good thing. >> Okay.
>> Been asked u by contractors, you know, what's it like out there? And >> they're trying to see >> they're slowing down. They're seeing the the light at the end of the tunnel that I'm telling we're still designing. So, it gives them hope.
>> I I had about a one month lag in December and last two weeks it's been like five calls. It's been like, okay, people took the holidays off and now all of a sudden it's go go go. and and on our side as Michael can give a whole lot more
detail, but from the 20,000 foot view, we are finishing up the 2016 referendum. We've got about a year and a half left on that work. Um, so there's a lot of work still going on, the facility renewals and such. Um, and the 2024
referendum got passed last November. Michael and the team have been putting together a massive package of all that what we're doing the capital plan that goes with it. Miss Evans um I think lands on we've uh we've been working closely to try to plan what the next uh
grouping of projects are and whatnot. So we're essentially trying to almost draw a little firewall between okay we're still doing the 16 referendum stuff and getting going on all the 24 stuff. So I don't want to say it's double work but we do have a whole lot of work coming down the pike. So, it is drawing that
interest. >> Leanne, are you on? >> Yes, sir. I'm here. >> Um, so I noticed our sales tax as of January 1 went down uh what? Half half cent, >> right? >> Does it kick back up again because of
our half cent or does it just stay at the six and a half%. >> No, we had 7%. Half of that was ours, 20% went to the county, 30% to cities. The um they decided not to move forward the tax. So, we switched from the local government infrastructure tax to the
school capital tax, and that's just a half penny. So, that's why you saw it go from seven to six and a half. Um, it will stay there until another item comes to the to the voters. >> So, January one, the new referendum tax kicked in. >> Right. >> Okay. >> We won't see that money. The old tax
ended December 31st. The new one started January. There's a three-month lag. Um, you're the the stores are collecting sales tax right now. They have to send it to Department of Revenue by the end of February. We get it by the end of March, the new tax. So, we still have two months of the old tax that we're
collecting. And the new one will start getting money in March. >> So, we'll be getting both tax money. >> No, they they one will run the old one runs until through Febru'll will collect money through February. The new one will start in March. So, there's no doubling
up. It just it takes there's a two-month lag. We're still trying to spend the rest of the money, but yeah, there's no doubt. >> Okay. Yes, there will be. There absolutely will be um for ISO, which I know you're very interested in. Well, we'll get to the point where there's two
reports, >> right? >> So, for the reports that come in January, um which is the end of February meeting, it will look just like always, but when we get to the next meeting that's through the end of March, you'll have two reports. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> All right. Uh PC6. Did we finish that? I don't think we did. >> That was your your comment. It was a comment, right? >> We need forward. >> Okay. Virginia, need a second on PC6. >> Second by Mike. Go ahead and pull this.
Maris >> Alexander. >> Yes. >> Porter. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> John Chasher. Yes. >> Wilkinson. >> Yes. >> Lisa Ravis. >> Yes.
>> Michael Gelfin. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Tom Burgerer. >> Yes. >> Virginia Parish. >> Yes. >> Chris Tommpkins. >> Yes. >> Okay. We're down to item 4.0. Um
CM at risk agreements. Are we reviewing any of that at this point? >> Uh yes. Um I'll just give a quick overview m but Michael's actually going to talk about it. What this is um I I know we we previously expressed to Cork
the concept of the um new contract language that we wanted to fix. I know we've with with the policies it's been a lot of look looking at um the contract the construction contract that we currently have and there are areas that
there were conflicts that we just never had a chance to fix. So we kind of went through it all um um with um uh purchasing our our legal team uh risk management trying to fix insurance and
other things. So, we've gone through and made a series of suggestions um of changes. Um Michael will get into the details and the reason why we want to implement new contracts is we do have
some new work coming up that we would like to have the new terms for those new contracts. Like when we go to build the Westlake Elementary School, which is in design right now, we'd like to have that contract with the new language, make it
better for us. It uh makes it better for in some senses for the contractors, easier, cleaner, and more concise. So that's our intent is to and what we're doing right now is simply showing you what our suggestions are. We don't even
have to get into a discussion. I know it says discussion on here, but we really don't need to because I know um we're not ready to necessarily show you court the final 187 page contract. Yes, I
that's why it was when we're ready to show it to you, we will give it to you with like say three weeks time to review it before the next meeting where we would be able to discuss it, get your feedback. This is more just a cursory overview of some of the things that
we're proposing to make changes to. And I don't want to say next month, but in one of the next months, we will be coming back with this same thing, but you will have had three weeks to look at the contract and swallow better the changes that we're looking to implement.
So, >> yeah, just to add on to that, so I will say that um a couple of the items there's not a full consensus among staff of that this is the right way to go. So, these are just kind of topics to discuss and what we're thinking generally. Um, and we do have, as mentioned in the the
questions and answers, we do have an outside council that um, Holly's kind of spearheading getting input from them and making sure that we have lots of eyes on it. We also are looking at them audit company um, CRI is doing theirs as far as not the whole contract, but what what as far as payment applications and
things like that that they deal with on a day-to-day basis about what other entities Yeah. best practices across the state. Um, but we have a lot of eyes on it and we wanted to make sure we pulled all that together before we gave you every line of the 167, >> but we did tell you we were going to try to get to the ideas of what we're doing.
>> Yeah. So, I'll jump right into the ideas. If you don't mind going to page three, we'll jump right to it. So, um, change orders. This is something that we've been working on with a long time with trying to get people paid um, faster, but at the same time being able to, um, have a full accounting that can
pass an audit of what happened there. Um right now there's a there's a provision in the contract um for um 35 days that um the contractor is supposed to let us know um of something that needs to go to the board. Now that's a
kind of a tall task to expect them to know what needs to go to the board and what doesn't. we did that to um to 35 days from 60 days and that's directly proportional to that statute that came out um of requiring 35 days for a change order and the pre-approval process that
we had talked about before. Um so hopefully with that we'll have a team effort to try to get these big dollar change orders pre-approved in a manner to the board without having some questions after the fact. So, um, that was the the changes there from 60 days to 35 to align with the statute.
>> It's, um, sorry, Michael. Uh, it's the original contract says that that they're supposed to submit something to us 35 days prior to a board meeting to take it to anything that needs to go to the board. >> I'm sorry, you're right. >> And unfortunately, that's not enough time for us to actually get it to the
board. So, we've increased it to 60 so that they have to submit it to us early enough that we can actually make it to the board. And that that really applies to mostly to those pre-approvals that we can get those to the board so we have a pre-approval before we have a change order come through that we would need to take you know approve
>> within the date. Yeah. So I know with the 35 days it's confusing. >> Does the statute control change orders or the statute just controls contingency use? The >> statute controls change orders. >> Um and that was a 35day limit. >> Yes. >> Yeah. But what we're saying is that they have to give us notice that, hey, this
is a big change order 60 days in advance saying that it's going to have to go to the board. That way hopefully they'll give us time to take a pre-approval to court and the board >> um to delegate the authority back to us. >> Our own internal process. >> I'm sorry, I confused everybody. I said it wrong.
>> That's okay. So, we're going to get a pre-approval, not the actual final change order that goes to the board so that the board can get the official within 35 days. Exactly. >> And then once at that point, once we get a pre-approval, it goes through court, goes to the board. They say they're going to delegate the authority of
>> whatever $500,000 for this specific item back down to the superintendent when it does come through. That way, the actual change doesn't need to go through the whole process and we can expedite it when it comes in. Um, most of the items that are large change orders, we know well in advance. There's a design to them. There's permitting that has to
happen. So, um, with a few exceptions. So, we should know in advance that we're going to have a change order in the future. So, that's the processing. So the court and the board won't see the actual change order. We're all both see item as a report. >> Okay. >> You'll see the pre-approval
>> come through and you'll weigh in on whether or not we should even be doing this and whether the costs are somewhat appropriate and then you'll see the FC1 item when it actually comes back aboard with the final item. >> Right. And that's us and the board because anything we see is the board. So we look at it on Thursday, the board
looks at it the following Wednesday >> and they say, "Yeah, go ahead with it." And then you come back with the official document to get signed. >> Yes. >> It doesn't have to come back through us again. >> Not not for the official approval would have delegated, >> right? >> We're just concerned with the dollars anyway.
>> Um, next bullet there is eliminated language about restricting overhead and profit for the first 2% of change orders and contingencies. So what we feel like is it's a accounting struggle to keep track of what's 2% and over 2%. We have our base contract. If there's a change
order, they get the over in profit. And you know, if there's a deduction, they return over in profit. Let's keep it straightforward and not confuse it. John, >> yeah, I was just curious what prompted this. I guess you just said it's easier bookkeeping, but could you um perhaps
look at let's say last year 2025 and tell us if you decide to implement this in the future um how much that would have cost the school district if you would have paid the 2% um last year on change orders and contingency.
>> We can and a lot of what's driving this is the new 35day requirement to turn around change orders. So, um, we'll get a change order and we have to have things resubmitted because something gets approved ahead of the other one. We got to go back and change it, which delays things and we're not going to have that luxury going forward with the
new state statute. So, that's that's a lot of what's driving this. Um, and remember, John, if you would, it's it's just the overhead and profit on that 2%. So, if you have even if you had a $100 million project and you added $2 million of change orders, it's still only the 5% on the 2 million. So, it's not like
we're not talking a we're not talking $2 million. we're talking, you know, 5% of the 2% when it comes to the actual overhead in profit. And the issue is that, you know, Dorothy was the one dealing with all of this stuff with the um closeouts, but to have to go back and
rectify and make sure every contingency did or did not or was or was not supposed to have overhead and profit because it was before or after the 2% and then line it with the change orders and everything else. It was be it became a a bookkeeping nightmare at the end to close out. You know, we always hear complaints about how long it takes to
close out. Well, this is one of the reasons it takes a long time because we're we're forensic auditing the the financials to make sure that we've only paid overhead and profit after that 2% and they don't always align perfectly. So, it's a whole it's a whole rectifying issue.
>> Okay, I understand. If you can just give us an estimate of what that would have cost us >> last year, that would help. >> By the way, can I jump in real quick and just say um you know, now that the name got brought up, um Darthothy is still with us. Um, we're very happy and proud to say
that I think there was a discussion at one point that Dorothy may be um, looking at retirement and we said, "Oh, heck no. No, you're not allowed to retire." So, she is still with us and I'm not sure if she's online right now. But, um, we are very happy to have her with us. And as a matter of fact, as you
all are talking about, the thing that Darothy is working on and will continue to work on is closing out projects. That's our biggest challenge because as mentioned the forensic evaluation of old contracts um is is incredibly difficult and it seems like the one brain who
seems to get it is Darthothy. So again, thank you Dorothy for staying on and continuing to help us get these things closed out. >> So now we can torture Darthy for not getting it done in time. >> That's right. You always did anyway. So
>> Bruce, go ahead. Thanks everybody. I I I I have a question. Um and and maybe it just got answered. I'm not sure. But in my mind, there could be a distinction between a
change order and 2% on a contingency. And just to give a context on that, >> me many many takeoff uh figures which uh contractors develop for their bid price
contains within it noted contingencies. So I'm I'm I'm and that contingency uh may or may not contain an overhead and profit within that contingency number that makes up the bid price
>> and we'll we'll address that as well. So that's a great point and uh later in this presentation we'll talk through that and then if you still have a question if you don't mind coming back after that because we have two other items that address that issue. Exactly. >> Outstanding. Thank you. >> Okay, Michael continue. Thank you.
>> Um third bullet there is expand the allowable backup for change orders to include unit pricing for materials and labor. That's already in there. Um estimates from regulatory agencies or utility companies. So what that is is when we get a bill from Florida Power and Light, the gas company, they're not
going to provide any backup to us. Either we do it or we don't do it. And we've tried and pushed and we're just not going to do it. So, but we just wanted to emphasize that in the contract so that we can point to that and say yes, this is allowed. Um competitive bidding of work. So if we get a competitive bid of of three different
vendors, we can say that's a competitive number. We will still review it and give it to smell test. Does that make sense? and but we don't have to do the deep dive fair and reasonable backup if we had got competitive numbers. Um and then where proposed unit costs align with the GMP. So if they got competitive numbers
on concrete work for you know $8 a square foot for this item, they do a change order for another five square feet. They match that number. We don't have to do the deep dive fair and reasonable. So those last three were not in the contract. Um but we think it's kind of common sense for to give us that
option where we feel it's appropriate for change orders. Um contingency use um we added a 35 submission day period after the occurrence. So we um you know contingency this scope is already in the contract. We already told them you were
doing the scope. there's just a discrepancy of the details of that scope. We put in the contract that they need to tell us that 35 days from there's some specific legal um terminology in there about when they noticed and when they the incident
occurred that they have to give us notice that they found it and are looking to have a credential use. Um, and then with the back and forth, we added a 21-day resubmission. So that way, if we give them specific comments on how to address a a CCU that they
submit, they have 21 days to resubmit it to it. That way, because some of these things get drawn long into the project and we want to make spurt make sure that we're doing our part to review these because we're going to have timelines on our end, but the CM's also doing their part to give us the backup information
um to get these approved because again, these aren't change orders. this is already in the scope of project. These are the most critical to keep the project moving. >> If you don't mind, Michael, and the the issue here um is we did have a requirement for them to notify us of changes of 21 days originally, but we
had nothing in the contract that mandated they actually provide it within a certain time. And this is to put you know hold the contractors uh you know um you know hold them uh responsible for actually providing within a with a 35
days resubmit it within 21 days after that so that we don't have these like Michael said dragging out 200 300 days that you getting 40 uh CCUAS at the end of a project and you're trying to close it out and you get all these things you're having to take through Cork and
the and the board. So the idea is to make sure that they're doing it promptly or we we actually have language in there that if they fail to meet it, we don't have to we'll just reject it and they won't they won't be able to use the money. So it puts the onus on them to actually be prompt with their contingency use.
>> I could see some of this contractors getting into liquidated damages where they don't meet the deadlines for us to submit. They go to the next month or they go to the next month. Then they come saying, "Well, my whole job was, you know, delayed. I couldn't get it done because I can't meet those
deadlines. We should probably have some clause in there. You know, no, no job extension will be granted because contractor failed to meet these dates, >> right? Yeah. Contingencies don't extend their um their time frame. We not
allowed to extend their contract time contingencies. Um >> um and this last bullet here's there's a clarification about um when we when we updated our policies about the cause codes there was some questions about what does a contractor error mean right and the contractor error is there for um
when they got their bid from their electrical contractor he said I'm going to do this scope and he clearly said I'm not doing this scope and it was missed by the CM and that scope is not in their GMP that's the kind of stuff that's going to be listed as a contractor error we wanted to clarify here is that workmanship ship problems. They
installed something that's wrong. Clearly on the plans, a certain way they installed it wrong. That's not allowed to be used the CCA or changer. That's on the the nickel of the contractor that made the error. So, >> are we going to have further language clarification about errors you just talked about? Yes. And what what the
ramifications of those will be. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And as far as the the contractor errors about missing something in the bid that we're going to track separately and it's going to be a measurable that we can use in our selection committees that this contractor had this many percentage of errors, this one had this
one. So it's a something that's a quantifiable number. Um and the better contractor is going to have better number because they did better job in precon clarifying the scope. Right. So that's that's kind of the the big >> Yeah, that will be important to get on the the PPEs. >> Yeah, exactly. We're trying to move the
PPEs to quantifiable numbers that you met this requirement or you didn't. You responded in the contractual 14 days or you didn't kind of thing rather than a subjective they're doing a decent job or a great job because I can say on a score of one to four a three is a great job. You can
say no a four is a great job and it you know there's a variance there. >> 3.75 that's a C >> right? We quantify that to something that way we think we're going to have more the PBS be more applicable to the results. It's like a teacher reading an essay.
>> Um the payment application. So we've done a lot to try to um simplify our payout process and again still try to have that high level of controls. Um so our overhead and our staff billing um we're going to tie right now there's a formula that they have to do two
different formulas to calculate those costs. Um which sometimes causes some confusion. So, we were going to tie that directly to the percentage complete of the project. And um we've heard some some CMS love it, some are say, well, it's, you know, our work's kind of more of an curve. So, we've had some mixed
feedback, but overall, we think it's going to improve our speed that we're able to turn around pays, which the consensus is that's going to help everybody. So, if they're 33%, they get 30% overhead and profit and 33% staffing. And it's easy to calculate. There's no mistakes, and it's um I think
it's going to definitely speed things up. um the monthly review of GRs and GC's. Um we added language. So with this audit company coming on board um if the general if the CM says I use again I'll use a 33% number as just an example. I
use 30 uh I use this many GRs and GC's we're just going to pay that based on their without all the receipt backups. And then every project when we get to the end between the closeout process we're going to do an audit of that all at once. We're going to look at all their GRS, all their GCs, and either
it'll be an outside company or staff um that'll review that and rectify it before we do the final change order for the project. And what that does is when you, as you can imagine, if you're looking at every month, you have to look, well, was this one approved a month before or two months before? Was it the right number? And that causes
delays and payouts when we're talking about such pennies on the dollar compared to the overall project. We're just going to take their word for it that it's is what it is. And then, but before we close out, we're going to rectify it. go through a detailed process to make sure it's accurate, that every receipt matches, they're only paid for what it is. If we owe them a little
more money, we'll give them a little more money. If they have to give back money, they'll give it before it's closed out. So, that's the idea there. >> And the way we roof that language, or at least recommended language, is that um they are able to bill a percentage of their GRs and GC's up to the percentage complete they are of the work. So, so if
they're 50% done with the work, they can build 50% of GRS, 50% of GCS. Now, um that doesn't mean they have to build 50. They can build up to that number. But the way that the way uh for construction finance to to make it easy, they can just look at that number and say, "Okay,
it's under that 50% complete. So, we're good. Check." Instead of instead of looking at that receipt every every month. Um and that gives the the contractors who are doing a really good job of tracking their own costs, they're still going to have to provide the receipts at the end. Exactly. That way
they can decide, hey, I'm only at 45% of actual GRS based upon my receding, even though I'm 50% done with the job. So, I'm only going to build 45 because maybe they don't want to potential overbuild to have to uh uh, you know, provide a a a um return on on funds.
>> That's the thing. The key is this is not absoluting them of the responsibility of receipts. You better darn well keep the receipts because you're not going to remember 16 months later. What was that receipt from way back when? Keep them each month. Make sure that you're staying in line. >> We're only going to audit them
internally once at right at after we do the retainage reduction because that's usually at the very end of the project. They've reached substantial completion. Project's pretty much done and we've reduced the retainage on all the work. And then we're going to do it right then while we're waiting. Well, because once that's done, then we do our final change order, final pay app, and close out the
job. So it it won't it it's going to put all of the time towards the end where everybody's already been paid 95% of the work which is much better for cash flow and keeping subs and sub and small businesses active and and and with cash flow >> an efficiency standpoint we're doing it
once 27 times as well. >> What if uh what if the C doesn't have the receipts at the end? What do they get paid? >> They don't get paid and then we pull it back with their with their deductive change order at the end. We just deduct extra And so do you pay them any percentage
for their uh >> we only pay them >> GRGC's whatever they can back up with receipts. Yes. Invoices receipts. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> So that's two million bucks on a on a big project. You pulled back two million bucks because they dumped all the receipts.
>> Wow. Okay. >> We're putting we we're holding them accountable for what they're actually spending, but we're expediting the payment process. >> We do that now. We just do it every month. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> And it's incredibly painful for both us and the contractor. >> Yeah.
>> I like I like paying for what the percentage of job is complete. That's how I look at my pay apps all the time. It's like no, you can't build 80% when the job's 30% done. >> Exactly. That's why we're matching it. We're matching. >> Language that we're updating. For instance, the the
um cost that they have right up front, like a bond or insurance payment, we will pay them on the first payment. So that's a real cost that they incurred right at the start of the project. We're not going to make them wait till spread it out and be the bang for us. So we they're we're trying to be fair with it as well, >> but they have to provide a receipt for that payment.
>> Absolutely. >> Yep. >> Yeah. Good. >> All right. Precon responsibilities. Um here's where we we clarified what our intent of precon. There was some language in there already, but we we um
very specifically um referenced contract language of what we expect during precon such as site visits, um plan reviews, um project manuals, schedules, all those kind of things. And um did we have the PMS in here? Yeah. Okay. um to make
point to a contractual item that this is what you're supposed to be doing and if we don't get this then you're breached contract that can be reflected either in their PPE or whatever the case may be. Um you know every plan submission should have a set of red lines and a cost estimate with it. Right? That's what we
expect. If you can't find something wrong with that plan set of plans, you're not doing your job because I know David, you could find something wrong with every single set of plans if you right or at least comment, right? So we want to make sure that we're getting that level of precon so that when um we get that coordination so that when we
get to the GMP we know we have a well coordinated set of documents as a team. >> The architects are helping the contractors by leaving stuff off to allow them to find something worth >> and then the last one is about the our own our cahula. Oh yes, we added
language about the owner's um software to make sure that it's in the contract for them to use for and we've listed out what they're going to use it for. >> That's another reason we're pushing for these changes to happen pretty quickly because uh our program management software we're expecting to greenlight
that around uh I think it was like May. So go live in May. >> So every con you know we need language in there to to utilize that as well. So that's why we've put it in there. >> Okay. Um this is a continuation. Um so the the
penalties in the contract when they did not do there's probably a dozen things throughout the contract. It was either um fire them or don't pay them at all. That was the tour media and we're like none of those some of those aren't really the best solution for what we're trying to get worked on. So we changed
some of that when there's a problem with not fulfilling some of the duties. um we changed that to withhold the overhead and profit and staffing from the CM until they delivered the items that we listed there in that section. Right. >> But the payment of the sub is still do
the work they get paid until that's remediated. So, um, and then it, you know, if they're still refusing to do something, we can have have further action, but to to fire somebody or to completely hold payment doesn't help anybody on the project, you know, and that that's probably it was just carried on, I don't know, maybe a dozen
different sections throughout the contract, and we didn't think that was the right um remediation for getting things move, keeping things moving. Um, all right. So, the PMIS report right now, the PMS report is required on two projects 2 million and above. um we
don't think that's appropriate. Um we we we are proposing to change that to 7.5 million which will again align with our CCNA contract that we have. Um so anything where we go out for a single RFP will have the PMS report and anything that does not will not require
that. Um but we did also go through line by line. um we feel like that PMS report is really outdated in what's required in there and it's asking the contractor to do narratives and narratives that are customized that we really don't need. Um it's really arduous. So what we've done
is simplified that report to really what we want and what we think is applicable for the district. So we we paired that back. Um some cases we added a few things but most cases we refined what was there or eliminated requirements. And what that did is going to be a a concise report that gives what we feel
is a really good picture of where the product is instead of a lot of word salad that doesn't really help you. So, um, we think that's going to be it it's there's a cost right now for all of our large products to prepare that PMS report, you know. So, there really should be the value appropriate for that
cost. So, we we've modified those. I think both the CMS and us will be much more happy with those results. And again, we'll we're going to bring that back so you can see exactly what was required before and what we're requiring now, but just giving you the concept. Um, some of that was there was some
redundancy in in some of the items in the report requiring and I think there was four or five different schedules required and we're like we just need one schedule and a and it you know and a look ahead schedule not not all these different schedules. Anyway, um moving on. So um
revised punch list at substantial to includes close out deliverables. Okay. So this is kind of a requirement on the district. So we have a punch list which is pretty straightforward that the the CM kind of prepares and then the architect comes in and does a detailed punch list of what's required to get done. But in many cases there was other
requirements that were not listed in that. So, um, BCS would have a list of requirements. The the county would have a list of requirements. You know, different people would have different requirements that we say, "Okay, thanks for finishing the punch list. Now you have one more thing to do." And they do that. Now, you have one more thing to do. And and just being fully
transparent, that's what's delayed some of these closeouts. So, what we're putting the onus on the the the owner to give them a comprehensive list of items that they need to do to close out the project. >> So, if there's a submitted to the it's >> that's us. Yeah.
It's it's twofold because it's right now it's written that the architect, the owner, and the CM all together go out and do this punch list and create that list which our team effort >> and that's still a requirement, but we're talking about the other items that come up that we have a stop a you know a
shop drawing requirement from before that's not we have a database that shows all that. So at the punch list time we're going to collect all that data and give them a comprehensive list of everything that needs to be done to finish the project. That's the goal with that. And then >> it's not just going to be fix the job up is here's your missing documentation.
>> Exactly. And and then at that point that's where the 90-day deadline it applies to both the punch list and all those other documents as well. >> Right. >> So your their assals are going to be all the warranties on the AC equipment. All >> everything's going to be listed in that
at the same time as the punch list. So that's the idea. That's the intent >> and we're in the process of developing that that checklist of what it is to have a comprehensive list and then just get rid of the items that you don't need versus trying to create a new list every time. So, >> and we know that on our side from the owner's perspective, our job is managing
the project is 90 days before they're at substantial completion is when you better be sitting down with these guys and going through the checkbook, all the things needed are needed. Don't wait till substantial completion and then start the clock and whatnot. I mean, the contractors sitting in the room all know they they don't sit around and wait
until substantial to start looking at what do they need to compile for closing. >> And honestly, our bigger projects are are kind of easier with that list than some of the the facility renewals that we have because there's some gray area. You know, we put in a new air handler unit we did a TMB, but we require a very
brief scaleback version of commissioning on that item. Well, that's some clients don't require that, right? So you may not know that and that comes as a comment and close out rather than as they're doing it they can get that done. So there's little things like that that we're trying to get very transparent with so the requirements are known that
way we get it all at the same time. >> So at punch list now they're not requ at closeout they're required to give you all the warranty documents and all that now. >> Yes. >> You're asking for that at punch list. We're just going to list down. We're just going to list saying they need to have that before they can close out the
product to make sure. >> So, this is saying to include closeout deliverables. >> Yeah. So, so right now um there is a punch list that's done by the architect, owner, and CM as they walk the job at after substantial completion. Um that list is developed and then they have 90
days to complete that list. Uh the language that we're recommending is to also include everything like the warranties as part of that list and say punch list. Here's all your warranties and everything >> and you need you need to compile them all within the next 90 days because what
what's happening now is that they get through the punch list. We going to close out and we say here's your other list. Sorry. >> Here's your other list. And then we extends it another 90 days because now they're doing the second list that we've we didn't provide to them until a week. >> This would have explained it to say to include a list of closeout deliverables.
>> Yeah. Yeah. That's probably a better way to word it. Y >> because I'm thinking you want all the warranty stuff at the walk through. >> No, no, not at the walk through. Yeah. >> One more word in here would have clarified. You're just looking for a list to give them a checklist so they know what they have to get done in 90
days. Exactly. That I understand. >> That's a good change. Go. By the way, my my apologies. Um, uh, for some of the group, some of the phrases that we like to use letters,
right? So, PMIS, do me a favor and let's explain GC's, GRS, general requirements, general conditions, what they are so that everybody understands because not everybody is general contractor in the room to understand that. >> Well, luckily we spelled this one out.
The guaranteed measurement price is the gym. You want that? >> So, um, where the guaranteed maximum price, we're putting requirements in here and this and touches on what we talked about a little bit before with some of it. So, um, we are capping the
labor burden at a certain percentage that we can go back and and audit later. So, this is coming from our audit company and I don't know if it's going to be 40, 38, 42. Um, they see CMS all around the country and get a at a labor burden rate. whatever that rate is that's consistent, we're going to cap
that because it's so hard when a if a CM says, "Hey, my labor I've seen my my labor burden is 20%." Okay, fantastic. Right? Somebody says, "Mine's 75%." How do we know that? You have to do a complete audit of their financials to see really what that labor burden is. So, we're going to go in there and say
that industry average is a fair number and this is what your labor burden is going to be, right? Was set on. So you have your actual raw rate of your staff plus your lab burden that gets your billable rate and it's clean and easy to audit after the fact. >> But it should be regionalized. >> Yes. >> Oh, absolutely.
>> The middle of Montana is not going to have the same rate as we will in Palm Beach County. >> No. And that's why we're leaning on our audit company which do does these reviews all over the South Florida and it's going to be South Florida appropriate. Absolutely. We want to be fair for everybody. we're not trying to, you know, um so if somebody has a is an
exorbitant cost to running their business, I'm sorry, you're you're not going to make out. Somebody's really efficient, then they can make a little bit extra actually. So um that's my understanding of it, but again, we're having these are being reviewed with different people that um will be doing those audits. So um we'll clarify that
when we come back with >> Does this also come into kind of a dollar per hour that we get charged? Is that part of the burden? So this is to set the this is to set the uh staffing rate. So we have staffing fee as the the CM space fee. Um and right now there's a
wild range for the same >> and I have commented on that a bunch of times. >> You know we we've seen superintendents that are 2500 a week and we've seen superintendents that are $6,000 a week and this is going to say that's fine whatever it is. We're now able to verify
that because we're going to say it's whatever their hourly rate is plus 40 whatever the burden that we we put in 40%. But like Michael said, we're waiting for confirmation that that's an acceptable one. But the idea is that if we need to and it also we've also added language that it would allow us to go
back and request either unofficial or official audits of their bookkeeping. So if they say yes, my superintendent makes $9,000 a week, we'll say, "Great. Show us their pay stub." And if they show us show us a check that shows 40 hours at
you know at that that rate that matches that plus and if they can then we're okay but I we don't think a lot of them can we think that a lot of them are charging us a three times rate instead of a maximum and we have no way to verify that so this is going to allow us to have that verification.
>> Excellent. Okay. Yep. I've done an audit for my office. Um 40% was was way low. >> Okay. >> I don't know that is that the number you guys are going to put in the cont. >> No, that's the number we put as a plug number in there that the CRI the one
that does these payout reviews all over the state. They're the ones that going to give us the actual number. >> Yeah. If they tell us it's 52% then that's what we're going to change it to. >> Yeah. We want to be fair. We just wanted to plug a number in there and >> we're relying on their their expertise to provide that.
Part of that discussion though um to be fair is what goes into that labor burden and what doesn't that you know you get when anytime with general requirements general conditions um staffing you know is the principle of the company on the project are they an overhead item. So,
where do you draw those lines greatly swing when you're when you're trying to pick out a percentage, even overhead and profit, um labor burden, all that kind of stuff. There's a lot of variables. So, we want to make sure that those are all aligned so that it's fair to everybody and then in turn be clear in our contract what gets put in that number and what doesn't. So,
>> you're going to have a list of what's allowed to be considered to be labor that >> way the CMS know what they should be charged and where and it's transparent everybody's doing to the same. So, >> yep. Um, so we restricted the self-perform work to those in a temporary nature. Um,
with the exception being that if they ask permission ahead of time and say, "Hey, listen. I have a concrete company that I own that I want to competitively bid the concrete work." Okay, that's fine. We give you permission to do that, but now you have to turn that bid into us. I think we said 48 hours 48 hours in
advance of the bid opening. That way there's there's um there's no perceived shenanigans with what they're doing, right? So that way we have that bid 48 hours and then they get their subs bids and they get a competitive number and then if it turns out that their self-perform is um the best value for
the district, then we can go with that, right? Um but generally speaking, for most of our projects, we don't want the CMS to self-perform a lot of work. Um we sometimes there's a perceived conflict of well they're managing the subs themselves. So that gets a little bit
sticky there. But in some cases, we do want to have that flexibility because in some cases it makes sense. There's a really uh messy work that they're going to have staff there and it may make sense for the district. So we want to at least give them that opportunity to present their case. We would give them a pre-approval. Yes, in this scope, we
think it's okay for you to self bid it against but get multiple numbers. Um but if not, then don't self-perform anything that's not temporary. So that's um we kind of did that throughout the contract >> and and we chose temporary nature because there's a lot of things that are difficult to price up and and get
competitive pricing for the district. Like if you're talking about um floor protection when you're doing, you know, going through uh to hire a subcontractor to do that, you would pay 10 times if you had to see them just do it with their staff on site because they have the materials, they have the people there rather than bringing in. So there
are certain things that are temporary in nature that we 100% agree that it's better for the district to have the CM, you know, self-p perform with their labor, but there's other things that we we, you know, like Michael said, there there could be a perceived um conflict of interest if there's if there is a
mistake in a $200,000 concrete pour that they did themselves, are they going to point it out if they see it? Because they're going to have to repour the whole thing. If they're the CM, easy, because it's the subs money that gets messed up. Now the CM is the undoing the self perform and we think that that
could lead to some potential conflicts of interest. So >> not not that anybody would but just eliminates that potentially. Yeah. >> Our word of the day is shenanigans, right? >> So these uh these last two are directly what we talked about before. So um we're
eliminating unpurchased scope in in the in the GMP. So what we are requiring is that the CM gets the actual number from the subcontract of their bid um lump sum competitive bid and that's the number
that gets put in the GMP other than the leveling. So we do want them to go through level it to make sure all the scopees covered but that's the number dollar for dollar that gets put in the GMP with no additional contingencies on top of that. All of the contingencies should be in the contingency line item for the project.
>> There's a purchase scope they make it a contingency note. you know, it becomes an allowance. >> It becomes an allowance. >> Yeah. That way it's that way it's very clearly identified and it's in a line item. So if there's, for instance, if you if you needed to install a new air handler and and the existing door was only a 30 door in the campus, but you
had to the the units are too big to go through that. You needed to tear up that door and put it in. you you might not get an actual price to do that, but you could say, "Okay, the air handler cost is 150,000 and we're going to carry a $20,000 allowance to do the uh opening and restoration of that opening." That's
fine because then you can invoice it when you get a sub to demo it out and a sub to install it back. You can invoice against that allowance and utilize it up. But that way it's clearly defined and it is not something that just gets loaded in HVAC and then >> we're going to figure it out later kind
of thing. >> Okay. So that that's the key part is that any allowance in there is going to have to have a specific use function that they wasn't clear in the documents or they couldn't get a bid because of a c certain reason that that'll be listed in allowance that we can track and then
any other contingency in there is built into that overall project contingency that they're going to get approval to use. And I think with our revised procedures that process is going to be a lot easier and smoother faster to do. So there won't be those issues getting that
in the timeliness of the project. So we think it's fair for everybody to do that. >> We definitely are going to have GMPS with many more allowances than we had in the past. But but at least that way we are very clear with where that money was supposed to be used. >> But but the key is not to have those allowances unless it's required because
if you're doing a good precon job during those other we talked about they're doing their plan reviews all the way through. There should really be nothing that is not defined because it should been should have been the DD comment. Hey, this isn't defined or the CD comment. You need to further define it, Mr. Architect, engineer, or I can't
price this. Having those conversations early. So, we understand there will be still some allowances just because of timing, but there has to be a specific reason for it. So, we're trying to eliminate allowances, eliminate contingencies, have everything in the in the cost of work, everything clear. I know that's an ideal um world that we
don't live in, but we're going to do our best to limit that. >> It comes down to us giving them enough time to pass. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Bunch of recent projects that have really been rushed and all of a sudden we get, you know, Yep. >> a cookbook worth of allowances and unpurchased scope because they either
weren't on the drawings or they didn't have time to price 100%. Michael, >> um, does this address any unforeseen conditions or is that a separate >> That'll still be in the the project contingency. Unforeseen conditions. Um that last bullet there is about
overhead and profit calculations on um contingencies. So this goes back to what we're talking about before. So we want to make it clear we're going to put everything in there with overhead and profit at the start and then anything that they return will be returned with overhead and profit. So it's a very
>> welcome John. >> And uh so we're putting it right in that contract that way. So when we get the GMP it's very clear because there are several different ways to do it and every time um we have to figure out did it have over did it not that kind of you you've heard the discussions you know so
we're trying to make it very clear what the expectations is so we're getting consistency with our GMPS and internal will help us process all this easier because we know everyone is is already got the overhead profit for contingency when they return it it gives it back you know that kind of thing so very clear for everybody on board there's no
questions >> so that's allowances and contingency Yes. >> Yeah. We're trying to put every in theory already in the project. >> We're trying we're trying to establish everything above the lines to make it easier when we come back. That way there's not was this was this not was this did have it did this not because
that again is one thing that leads to Dorothy pulling her hair out. Um is that not every GMP was done exactly the same. They should be but they weren't all. So sometimes an allowance got in align with an overhead in profit. Sometimes it didn't. She has to go and decipher that in each individual one. So we want to
make it clear and easy consistent. >> Along with this we're which I don't think is in here because but we touched on it. We're having an updated list of general requirements and general conditions too. Um so that it's all quantifiable information so that we can say that you know what what they're
going to everything that there should be able to provide backup for what those costs are. So making sure that list is concise and what should be in there versus what should be in their overhead and profit number. Right? So they know ahead of time, okay, I need to include that in my rent and profit as a negotiation and I
know that these costs are covered in general requirements, general conditions. So going in, everybody knows up front and there's no discussion on it. It's it's clear. >> If you audit any projects, this will be a heck of a lot easier to audit a project. That's part of the intent is to make it simpler and cleaner as well.
>> No mystery. >> All right, down to insurance. Um, this is one of the ones full transparency that we don't have an agreement on staff. Um, so I'll give you my I have the floor. So I, you know, I do not think that it should be our business to
have to be paying for and trying to um justify and prove the cost of anything related to the subcontractor's um bonds or SDI insurance. I think that should be up to the CM their business and what risk they want to take with their subs. We have a bond with the CM
that they're required to finish the work. So we're covered as an owner. So it's up to them whether they want to take that risk and do subbonds, SDI. It's also depends on the size of the company because some smaller companies don't have an SDI program. So they can do subbonds or not subcontract default
insurance. >> It it protects the CM in the case that a sub decides that they want to walk off the job. It ensures the CM. So it's it's insurance that we pay directly that protects the CM that we're already protected from because we have their bond and there. So it it's us paying for
a second or third layer of insurance. Yeah. That doesn't make sense because all it does is reduce the risk of the CM doesn't reduce our risk. It reduces theirs. So it is it's to to us it's a lot of wasted money that we don't think we should be spending. >> And the hardest part is us trying to track that down because once we were
paying for that, we have to prove dollar for dollar where those costs came from. And now we have to get into the financials of the CM because their fiscal year is different than ours and that they do it on a yearly basis and an umbrella policy. So, we're not saying that they can't do that. We're just saying that that's going to be part of
their overhead and profit to decide that, not an item that's part of what our reimburseable expenses. That's what I'm proposing. And again, there's some there's some push backs in different ways. So, >> we have a clause in the contract that requires the contractor to make sure all the subs are insured.
>> We we say that if they choose to do it for contracts over $100,000 that we will reimburse them for that. That's the way the contract reads now. But CM's protecting us. >> Yes. >> So even when I write my own contracts, I make sure that, you know, if if a sub
doesn't have insurance and the contractor wants to hire them, that's at their risk. >> If there's an injury or death on the job, the contractor has to take care of that. Don't don't come back to the owner. >> You're talking about like general liability and umbrella insurance policies. Yeah. That's that we're we're talking sub
>> SDI is like bonding. >> Oh, it is. But the word insurance >> Yeah. Sub default insurance is just bond. It's bonding the sub against their walking off or defaulting on the job. >> It's up to the CM anyway. >> Replacement. >> Yes, exactly. >> We have very little risk in the fact that all of our subs are pre-qualified
by the CM. They don't have to take anybody. They pre-qualify them. Make sure they have financial standings and we don't prepay for anything either. So even equipment, it doesn't we don't get paid. They don't get paid until it shows up on site. So we don't do deposits and then we hold retaining. So the the risk is mitigated all these ways if the sub
default. So we think that's really up to the CM to work out and and some CMS have pol procedures and requirements, you know, at a corporate level that they have to do it. That's fine. You have your own requirements to do that. That's up to you. >> We're just not going to pay for it. >> We're not going to pay directly for it and we're not going to track the payment
of it. >> We're not going to track the payment. If you choose to do it, it'll be part of your overhead and profit. If you choose not, you have a little more over profit. That's your risk. As a CM, they're supposed to manage their own risk with CM. That's their choice in my opinion. >> Okay. I was gonna say I was about to
open my mouth, but I'm gonna let go first. >> Mr. Sanchez, go ahead. >> I'm not gonna disagree with with Michael or or Jud, but I I am going to say that one of my responsibilities or our responsibilities is is to also provide
opportunities for for SBEEs. And when I'm out there, when I'm out, we're encouraging um CMS to to SBE. There may be some SBEs they're not familiar with and they may feel more comfortable using them if they have a bond subcontractor bond or SDI on
that on those SBEs or smaller firms. So there so I at the same time we're saying that it's the contract responsibility we have to also acknowledge the fact that we are encouraging them to to to use small businesses and get them some business as well. So let's keep that in mind too.
>> Yeah, they stole the words right out of my mouth. That's why I was trying to say that there is the other side of this and I agree with Mr. Sanchez about that. I also know that it is industry practice and that's one of the things that we're looking at CRIS feedback um of you know
how is it done in the industry what's what's the right thing to do because we are looking to protect ourselves um long long term I'm not saying what the answer is necessarily I appreciate Michael Michael's perspective I don't object to the fact that we
welcome the contractor to do it just negotiate it into his overhead and profit cost >> right >> yeah and then we don't have to track it either. >> We don't track it >> and we don't get we don't have to track it for auditing purposes and we don't have to track down each >> but I do appreciate the idea the concept
so that our some of our smaller vendors have an opportunity and I I'm like Mr. Sanchez, I I am going to support anything that'll help us get some of those smaller guys engaged more more often and some new ones because as you
know, one of our challenges these guys have been working through is that the small business community is um is a is actually a robust industry. It's just that some of our contractors like working with just a handful of the ones
they know and we we'd like to see a mix of others. We'd like to see other opportunities come in. I don't want to see the same guy on on four bids. >> And this is and this is why, you know, we're we are 100% open to them coming to us and saying, "Hey, you know, we're
utilizing three or four small businesses that that we've never used before, but that the district's qualified, but you know, we're not comfortable. So, we believe we want to, you know, can we have an extra tenth of a percent of over in profit to carry a bond for them?" And then that's a negotiation thing. >> That's fine. We're not telling them they
can't they can't come to us and talk about that. But what we just don't want to do is we don't want to have to track it, manage it, reimburse it on a dollar for dollar, cent for cent issue. >> Spent two years doing that in an audit tracking >> and it was impossible to find. >> Yeah, that whole thing with the fiscal
year just blew my mind about and how long they actually have to track it and they do it an umbrella policy over all the contractors other contracts. They mitigate the risk over a whole lot of other contracts. They have to audit all of those books. But became out
outrageous though. >> Um, next item is the uh reestablishment of the CM to carry builder's risk on projects over 7 and a half million. So this is one that's still also being finalized with risk management. Um, we used to do it this way. Um, we figured
that um, we did a a study showing that there was some cost savings to go with a a group policy run by the district. Um we we're doing less and less large projects that require the builder's risk and um we feel like it's the best
interest of the um of the district to have the CMS carry that cost and we will reimburse them for that. Um and again this is being still finalized so it's not 100% we're going to go that way. Um, some of the issues is we had a claim where and and the claim happens with
builder the the CM's the point of the claim with the insurance company and again why are we in the middle of the thing and we had a a contractor trying to justify costs for a project on a claim um with our insurance company that got very confusing and difficult to to
manage >> and then the insurance company went and sued our contractor >> they helped us get reversed on our claim >> actually helped us increased the cost to get and it the lawsuit was dropped and they reconciled it and it became but it
just took a long time and a lot of effort to get there that we don't think we need to be in the middle of but again um we have legal risk management purchasing all weighing in on it because there's it's not as clean as that there's pros and cons and >> yeah Michael I think is
>> um is it reasonable to put in a no segregation provision We heard you. I don't have any I don't >> Yeah, I mean I >> think about it if you don't have to, you know, give me an answer right now. >> Yeah, I mean just to kind of um also
provide a summary of sort of the the process currently. Um the contract is with me and I am working with small business risk management as well as purchasing to get their comments on the different sections. Kind of what you're
seeing here is what facilities is recommending. Um however as as Michael said a lot of this we are still um I'm still working with the the stakeholders. Um the next process is going to be for a legal review. We've retained local
construction council that's going to review it for best legal practices. Um, and then the next layer of review is going to be to go to Car Rigs Ingram. They're going to review it for sort of a statewide best construction practices.
Um once we have all of those comments back um then I will the contract will come back to me and I will work with all the stakeholders, facilities, risk, all that to get their input and make sure that they are good with the final
product and then it will come back to um Cork for them to review. But >> yeah, >> I will make a note. I know in some of our contracts we have a no subregation provision. Um, off the top of my head, you can tell you whether or not the CM at risk does, but it is a standard
provision that the the district uses. >> If we have different contracts, these um concepts are going to try to be incorporated into all of our different contracts. >> Yes. So, all of our new contracts,
our we're we're getting it to our new seven and a half and under um CCNA contract will be in there. Um and then our large projects that we have, we may look at if it's agreeable to all parties to implement this as a contract modification for those large projects.
But there will be all the projects we have going on right now are under the old they're already signed up. >> Yeah. But this will be the basis for all of our contracts going forward with the term. I just didn't know if we had other minor contracts that don't get into 187 pages that we would incorporate some of
the same kind of payment and and management processing. >> Right. I mean, I think the CM at risk is sort of unique to that. You know, I don't necessarily think some of this would translate over to an architect contract. Yeah, one of the, you know, so in that respect, I mean, what we're
envisioning is going to be the next RFP that's going to go out is for the smaller project of 7.5 and below and that'll incorporate, you know, what we the these new contracts. I guess I was thinking like we've got a bunch of roofing projects that came up and
they're they're actual bid projects, but it seems like payment issues and change orders and all of this concept stuff we're talking about here is all good stuff for just general business practice, >> right? >> It should be incorporated districtwide in any of our construction purchasing
contracts, >> right? and and because roofing projects and all those type do come under now that 35day limit, we will have to incorporate a lot of these changes as they relate to change orders definitely into and then um you know facilities I
rely on them for how they operate and what's going to work best and if some of these newer um processes that they want to review they want incorporated in the newer contracts we certainly can. I think that one of the valuable uh layers
we have is going to be a local construction attorney who's going to provide us guidance on what construction contracts look like here in West Palm Beach. Um, you know, I don't really know. I know what the districts look like, um, but I don't know whether or
not that reflects reality and then the CRI review is going to show us sort of on a statewide level what's going on. So, I think, you know, once we have all that back, I think you're absolutely right, we can incorporate these into all of our construction purchasing contracts
moving forward. >> Yeah. I think what you're going to find is that the standard AIA contracts that are mostly being used and you got about 40 to 50 pages, not 187. >> Well, it is the district >> and they haveed over a hundred years and stood up.
>> Moving on. >> Yeah. Joe, is your hand still up from before, Mr. Sanchez? Sorry. >> Oh, sorry. I'll take it down. >> Okay. Thought your arm was going to get tired holding it up there, Mr. Alexander. >> Oh, Bruce, go ahead.
>> Yeah. Hi, everybody. Um, if you'll just hang in there with me, I'd like to lay out a few things, not for discussion purposes, but as observations by me >> for consideration
um in moving forward with drafts of uh contracts. Um, so if if you're okay, and I know this is being recorded, which is cool, um, please just let me run through them. Uh number one, please consider uh having the district as an additional
named insured >> as a as a term of art on builder's risk policies that are being procured by the GC OIPS, CIPS, especially CIPS obviously
GL policies, PL policies from the design professionals and that we are uh co-principles under any uh under any uh public construction bond where we're not
already the uh the principal. Um the second issue would be um that with respect to any timing for making a payment whether it be on pay applications, change orders, um
contingency overruns, anything. Those are just examples that we that we are in sync with the latest version of Florida prompt payment laws. We can we can be more aggressive, but there may arguably
be an issue if we're if we're if we have larger time frames than the Florida prompt payment laws latest version. Next, consent of shy whether or not subcontractors are providing bonds. the
GC is providing with pay applications hopefully a consent of shity um that's very helpful for lots of reasons including in the unfortunate and hopefully unlikely event of a claim down
the road uh again term of art uh on the use of uh consensus shies which are industrydriven forms >> um next um uh CCDs. Um we talked about change orders, we talked about
contingencies. Um but I'm assuming and again not for discussion purposes but observationally I'm assuming that we're encapsulating the concept of CCDs or uh construction change directive CCDs
within the rubric of change orders. Um next observation is on the issue of delay. The issue was raised regarding delay and the concept of some form of potential no damage for delay clause.
And you know the the good news is if we look on screen there are a whole bunch of spectacular construction lawyers. You know Michael, Kevin, Tom, etc., etc. We know that in Florida there are at least
eight major exceptions to no damage for delay clauses whether it's a public project or a private project. So again just want to observationally make that comment. Next on the precon for
scheduling purposes on precon, there may be a benefit to a certification or an acknowledgment two very different things that prime subcontracts of a value in excess of blank have been
uh consulted and concur with the overall project schedule. Okay. And these are things again if we need to go into any detail there's a lot involved potentially it's never a problem unless it's a problem then it can be a big
problem. So I'm not saying these things by accident or to hear my voice. Okay. >> Uh next item assignment of claims. I don't know whether the latest version of our contracts allows for assignment of
claims in whole or in part. Um but um there may be legal uh benefits to the district in its ability to unilaterally assign claims. Um so let's let's give
consideration to that. Uh the next observational comment is um the the the person who stated 40% as a burden um was low. I I actually agree with that. Um, and and I'm a
little bit I I'm asking you to consider that when deciding what quote industry standards are for the labor burden, which can involve not just salaries, but FUDA, FICA, all kinds of components that
go into the labor burden, that we consider making that evaluation on a more regional basis. Florida because of many issues involving environmental and otherwise and climactic have different
very different labor burdens than certain states that we could pluck out of our country. So um let's please consider um as distinct from what is the uh standard of of care on a national basis
uh consider a more regional approach. >> Yes sir. Um, next on on the on the question of subcontractor bonds, um, you know, let's at least have an awareness that shies for certain general
contractors may require, okay, in irrespective of the district's contract. There's no requirement that there be subcontract bonds for that GC or or CM
that their shy may require them to have bonding for subcontractors over a certain dollar amount. So, let's please be aware. You know, we talked about the issue that, hey, we're reaching out to contractors, subcontractors, design
professionals to get their input on our proposed contract changes. I would ask you observationally to also reach out to the the major shities and or insurers
to make sure that they're comfortable with what we're putting in our contracts and that it's not restricting their rights. So, Michael, on the issue potentially of subregation, we may have one um approach to subregation, but as
between other um carriers between themselves, they may have a different approach to subregation rights. And so, again, it's not a positional um statement that I'm making. It's an observational statement that I'm making.
>> Um one one moment, please. The I think the last one has to do with something arguably that Mr. Sanchez raised and but just as an example not as a definitional point and that is that once an award is
given and and and we have the the pre-approved list of pre-qualified subcontractors. There are occasions during the contractor buyout postawward
where they will want to substitute subcontractors. Okay. And if that is the case, is the do we wish to have any procedure in our contract to be made aware that there are
subs being being substituted or sought to be substituted as part of that buyout proposal? Do we want an awareness of that? Do we want to to disallow it subject to our permission?
And if and and if that and and if it's going to be our permission, what are the qualifications that need to be presented to allow for the substitution of subcontractors postawward
jur buyout? Okay. Um and I think those are the comments I wanted to make. Thank you for letting me ramble on. But um I really I I hope you guys can appreciate that I'm not saying things for the sake of just saying things.
>> Can I can I jump in right on the back end of Bruce and I'll be real short. These are the issues that drive everybody crazy in litigation. We don't want litigation, but these are the issues that nobody can agree on that
create a lot of fight and prevent cases from getting settled. Yes, Ben. Michael, go ahead. >> Um, if you mentioned it, my apologies, but how much push back do we get from
our biders on our contract form currently? >> We don't get a lot. It's I mean, it's kind of the approach of kind of take it or leave it. We I mean, want to do business with us, use our contract. Um, we have a lot of recommendations to go to the AA because that's what everybody
uses. um the district as a whole hasn't had an appetite to do that. Um but you know, it'll be kind of the same thing. I think we're trying to make make improvements and be good partners. So, um we do allow for them to propose contract mods when we do it, but it's
very very limited. Um but we almost don't get any. Yeah, >> we almost never accept. >> Yeah. >> Michael, do you want to respond to Bruce because I think almost everything you mentioned we've already either addressed or Okay. But I I want to say Mr. Yelpan, if I may, um you're you're right. The
question uh for me is has the industry generally shied away from working with the school district because the terms of our contract as they currently exist, are they so egregious that people don't want to work with us? And I don't, you
know, obviously we we keep our ear to the ground on the with the a lot of the con construction industry and I have not heard that piece. That may not necessarily be the answer to your question, but I don't think that we've had a terrible time of things that our
contract is so egregious. What we're trying to do is we all feel it's it's a good contract. Can we make it better? >> Yeah. And and Dave, you're right. they don't they don't shy away. But all the complaints we get from contractors, we're trying to fix with these changes, like the payment issues, the the
expedition, the clarity, all these things that we hear constant complaints about. So yeah, it's it's not that they shy away from it, but they're stuck with these arbitrary calculations that are different on everything and it causes delays in the payment, which we're trying to rectify. So while it's not necessarily that they would not do
business with them if we kept them the same way, we can't also pay them fast enough if we are constantly rejecting it because of all these little things that they missed and mistake for trying to fix that. So yeah, I don't think a lot of the changes they would they would be opposed to or or necessarily super happy
about or and all of them. But >> still hoping that we're the best choice for government work in the region. I I forgive me. Go ahead, sir. I I think you would I think it depends on the job size. Uh if we had nothing but a million
dollar or less projects in 187 page contract, you wouldn't get anybody wanting to do your work because that size contractor is not going to spend $10,000 for another lawyer to review the contract to make sure it's okay. Um they're just going to go elsewhere to get work because there's work elsewhere.
I think it's because of the size of the projects we've got. um and that it, you know, it's a kind of a steady source of work and income even when the economy goes up and down >> as we uh move forward. Um you know, I'll just put in my support for not just
moving to the AIA contracts. You know they are good in many ways but there are different policies and desires and particularly because we are a public agency with citizen responsibilities
and uh following David's comment on this on the job size. Um you know I am in favor of us having a contract that suits our responsibilities and that it is fair. Um, I would say
that while the deadlines uh and date uh dates um may not be liked by a lot of folks, I don't know that I would call them arbitrary. Um, they had a justification at least at the time
that they came forward and especially where we have a range of dates, you you have to pick one in the middle, but that doesn't necessarily make it make it arbitrary. And I want to, you know, just reinforce that that has not been our
approach uh with our biders and contractors. >> Okay. >> Okay. Anything else, Michael? >> Yeah. Just um this last slide, it's kind of important to say that when you see the final version um with 170 pages, we couldn't put everything in
this list. We these would be the most um the items that would be u most interested in knowing about that way when you see the contract items. Um, but you may see something later that said, "Oh, that's really important to me." That's fine. That's why we're going to bring the whole thing back with all the changes, >> right? Once we have a chance to have our
outside counsel look at it and >> we thought those were the most important to present today, but there are a lot of little changes in there. Michael, >> um, what, uh, many of my clients have found helpful is that together with a
claim that there's a red line with bubble notes in the margin that provide explanations as appropriate. Uh, not everything needs needs that. You know, many times, especially with minor clarifications, it's obvious. Um, with that also, if you could add line
numbering to it, uh, so that, uh, we're literally on the same line as we go through it. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, >> I'd like to make a comment to add paper acts
that we have here. >> Write that one down. uction Virginia. >> Uh I want to compliment the presentation uh and u the thorowness that u the presentation had and definitely impressed with our um court board
members who who made the comments especially the attorneys on board. But I must say that I need to ask Michael and Bruce what is subjugation or that word you used? So subjugation is
a very interesting term Virginia that we will not comment upon you and I'll let you look that one up in the dictionary afterwards. Um subrogation >> oh >> is where a in this context it's where an
insurance company pays its insured or pays something on behalf of its insured and then sues or brings a claim against the at fault party. So, for example, if a contractor's insurer pays for some
damage and they think it's the count the school district's responsibility, then they take their copy of their check that they paid and they go back to the school district and say, "Here, we paid this. It's actually your responsibility. You
pay us." >> I understand now. Thank you very much. >> All right. Okay. Anything else? Questions, comments? Uh Kevin, >> I have a two questions on it. It was the
idea or question was spurred by the discussion of overhead rates because I litigate cost plus contracts all the time. And I always start with the owner agreed to pay a superintendent $150 an hour and I don't know what the labor burden is. I know the guy's probably
being paid $35 an hour. So we're always So I love the fact that you guys would figure out as Bruce said a regional overhead rate 42 52 whatever it is in our that's fair for everyone in our county. That's great. But how exactly do
you guys track the hours? like I'm going to put when when I get my overhead rate, I'm going to put uh I guess it doesn't matter as long as you have the overhead rate, but they're going to give you it's going to be what the guy got paid plus what the uh plus what the overhead
agreed to burden 52% 48%. So you won't have to go into whether the guy is really an assistant superintendent, whether the guy is a superintendent, the the qualifications of the guy because you're really focusing it based upon what the guy actually gets paid. So
that's good because I think there's some abuses in the industry where I'm sending out a guy with one day construction experience as a superintendent. So you may be curing that issue with your assigned overhead ratio because you're only paying for what you get, for lack of a better word. I like that. The
second part though is how does the district track labor because when I litigate these cases we're whether it be at a change order and how many hours were involved just because you agreed to the rates the labor is also something that's let's call it fudge sometimes I
find the assistant superintendent has eight hours on this project but also the same day eight hours on a totally different project and as you know only attorneys get to double bill right so so with that said um I've had projects with biometrics uh whether they get paid that
that comes into context of where the workers come from Miami or west coast of Florida do they get paid travel portal to portal and B with biometrics if something's important in a big line item is there such thing as biometrics on these job sites where the guy could
check in and check out >> other than other than GC time sheets that's a little bit more reliable. All right now I'll be quiet. So for 99% of what we do, it gets converted to a a lump sum. So that way we do not check the number of hours that they spend on
each project. If it takes them longer, great. If it takes them less, then then so be it. Um on our RFPs, we do pre-qualify and select based on the specific stack that they propose. So if they have a that's part of the qualification process. So, in our RFPs,
if they propose a super with eight days experience, then they're not going to win the job. And they have to ask permission to sub. Once we approve somebody on that RFP, then they have to ask permission to sub them out and has to have equal um or we have to agree to that substitution after the fact. So,
there's there's some checks and balances there for that. um we didn't think it was um we didn't want to get into the fact of checking how long they were on the site and that kind of thing because then it goes both ways and it just becomes an audit process of trying to prove you know what if they were there
less yes the school district may say that but if they're there more then do we have to pay for that extra time um we you know that we really leave that up to the CM to do um based on the appropriate duration of the project that's negotiated the staffing Um the the
staffing's negotiated. So if they say they need a full-time superintendent and the superintendent at 25% that's pre-negotiated and converted to a lump sum. So if they end up that guy needs to be there, we expect that staff to be there about that amount of time. And we do um informally make sure that if they
have a superintendent that they're on site, but we do not track down to the hour of how long they're on there. We just don't do that at this point. >> Yeah. >> Hope that answers your questions. Uh yeah. Yes, it does. Thank you.
>> Okay. Anything else on this topic? All right. We're going to move on. >> We're on to staff updates, I believe. >> Okay. No staff updates. I am not gonna Okay. Okay, and I'm even going to make it even easier because um whoever is
running the uh the thing if you're going to pop up the uh presentation next one is the this >> progress progress. >> Yeah. >> Um I'm not going to go through all the progress. All I'm going to um I'm going to ask you to if you I'll let him open
up. There we go. All right. PDF. >> Go to page 17. >> It's not your resation, is it? >> 17th. >> Yeah. I'm skipping past all the old stuff. Um you all see you're welcome,
everybody's welcome to look at that. Um I just want to short short on this presentation and just let you know that um of our major construction because of course all of our facility renewals are going on and we're going to continue moving those. Um but uh our major construction West Riviera um elementary
modernization that project is uh well underway and as you'll note as they scroll through those uh next uh series of slides um we are getting close to completion of that project. We would anticipate um sitting here in January
that what >> substantial completion in April and then we are not going to open till August but that gives us time to finish everything up before >> and and do tours and the community feel because this as many of you may know um this is one of the schools where we are
uh implementing the uh K2 35 split. Um and I know I'm going to completely get it wrong. Pthun is the K2. No, BPH is 3 and five and West is going to be the K2 for this area. And then there are
some kids that are being uh um uh rolled over to Washington. >> So, as Miss Ferris knows, there's a boundary change that goes along with that. And as we um take Lincoln offline, there's a whole procedure with reorganizing all the kids in this area.
So, this is part of that. >> Okay. And the next next school up is Okay. Yes, Mr. Ferris. Go ahead and I just wonder when the workshop's going to be held. The boundaries committee did meet and and send a proposal uh to the
superintendent. I wondered if uh the date was set for the board workshop presentation. >> It is. It's set for February 4. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Sanchez. Like I was going to say, I'm not going to be able to lift that up fast enough. Um uh so um and
that that's um so that project is moving on and um it is looking really good. Uh the next project step I have on is Rise Academy. As we all know that's formerly South Intensive that is uh currently um they are located in Portables or they
were up until a couple of weeks ago. They were uh located at portables out at the old south peek campus. Um we um >> scroll a little bit. >> Yeah, you can scroll the pictures now. >> Okay, so there right there. I leave it
out on that one. Um that is building one of the old Southtech campus. And you'll see the portables down at the bottom. That's where they used to be up until a couple weeks ago. Um we went through and completely renovated um all of building
one and at the at the old Southtech campus and that's so they then moved out of those portables and are now in the uh that newly renovated space. Um >> that was a winter break move. We don't typically like winter break moves
because it's a lot to squeeze in to that short period of time. >> But you can see they're moving 50 feet and the school wanted to get in there and it was ready to go. Um, and now we're going to come back and there's a lot of site work still that needs to be done. Um, one of the nice things on this site was we were able to not have a
holding school. So, they were able to operate out of those portables while the school was being renovated and it saves the district's cost by doing that. So, now we're going to go back decommission the portables um do finish up the site with the site works done enough to operate, but it's not fully complete until we get those portables moved and
finished up. Yeah, >> we can see it's um if they were living out of portables and now they've got an actual real great high quality well well uh proportioned school. >> Nice little Christmas present for the kids. >> Yeah. Yeah. And that's the thing for
whatever headaches or challenges it was and u uh the team did a great job of of getting the the school ready, but it was worth every every bit of the headache just to get them in um even for the last half of the year. So, okay, next one up
is uh historic Roosevelt. Um this project is coming upon its coming to its completion. That's we refer to this as the phase one portion. That is the um the adult ed the um
uh technical education center. Um that is there. We built a new two-story building and we renovated the what we used to call the I guess the welding lab. Those two buildings are opening in March. >> March. Right, Ben?
>> Yes. >> Um Yes. And then you'll notice that the building above it right there in that picture is the gymnasium. Um that one that one we were a little delayed on um or developmenting uh uh there was a lot
of u uh challenges with the facility. And we're gonna bring back a full kind of report of the gymnasium and what's going on and where we're at and how we're moving forward on that in another meeting. So I don't want to dig into that one too much. >> But the gym the gym isn't necessary for the academic buildings to be operated.
>> There's an electrical room in the gym that's being finished out on a temporary basis in order to um energize the other two buildings. So that's what's being done now so that we can operate those other two buildings. Um and then the gym's coming along and they'll have the site work done so that there's no interference with those other buildings
as we um have students, adult students in those spaces um while the gym is being finished up. So we have a a as of this week, you know, we've been working and we have a a real clear path forward with the gym um and we'll present that to court so they have a full
understanding of it. >> Okay. I think the next one is a a relatively small project but nonetheless um equally important is the village academy kitchen and you can see there's a it's it's
underway. It's or probably mid project. So >> this was a combination of a um referendum project and a standalone expansion project that we combined. We have the cost split so we're accounting for all the money separately. Um the renovation part is paid for with the
2016 referendum and then the rest of the expansion is paid for by the district. So it's kind of a twoin one project that we did. >> Okay. Um, of course we have u plenty of minor projects and David and Maris um um well
Maris doesn't have any more hair but David lose his hair because of the minor problems because they are probably as they may be the smallest dollar values but they they are equally as challenging if not more challenging. So they u continuing on with a lot of great
projects. Um >> what's the schedule for a parking lot out here? I see it on the list. It's >> on the list have a sale. >> We're actually opening bids today. >> Sure. >> This afternoon. >> So, hope to have a GMP submitted by the
end of the month >> and and that would mean that in a couple of months we'll be it's understood probably going through it. Um yes, poor David gets um tagged pretty much at least once twice a week asking somebody asking 20 and knocking our parking lot out
>> daily. Once it starts, he's going to get tapped on the shoulder about 20 times a day. Yeah. >> Yeah. And we are we are um looking at it both from the perspective the pricing is going to be based on whether it's done all at one time or in phases. So we can
determine whether timing versus dollars is worth it. Um I also want to point out that um it's not on this presentation. So you you can scroll through those. There's a handful list of those projects. some of the
photos projects that we've been working on, finished up the Wellington. Um, and one of the items that I didn't did don't have anything in here because it's it's still in the design, but I did want to remind everybody
uh that we are still working on um the new elementary school and that we would anticipate that coming to the board in a couple of months or a few months. Um >> the GMP very soon >> the GMP March. >> March. Okay. So, that is uh that is
moving towards a fast start uh in construction and we're excited because I think that's um that our last well no not it's not last. We're very but um that's probably our our last
programmed um uh school right now for for the short term. >> Okay. Anything else? Is that it? All right. Any questions on that? Okay, followup. I don't think we have any follow-up, do we? No. >> Okay. Was on the agenda.
>> Approval of minutes. Anyone with issues with the minutes? >> Yeah. At the end, uh the date for the next meeting was incorrect. >> John Chesher. >> You're muted. >> You're muted, John.
>> Yeah. I have to get go to page two of the minutes, please. >> Slide it over to the other side so that they can see it. >> Yeah, if you look there, um, item 3.02, 2. It was regarding FC1. It says, "I recommend the board receive
and approve as submitted." And then it says items 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10. A motion was made and a second. No objection. But what happened to items two, five, six, seven, all of them that are missing. There was not no indication
of what happened to those. >> Those items weren't pulled and they were approved in the consent. So, I listed the items that were pulled that were discussed. >> I don't I don't see where you listed the items that were pulled.
>> That's items 1 3 4 8 9 10 12 14 17 21 and 22. >> I was wondering where the resolution is on that. >> I don't understand what you're saying. SC1 was approved
or with all of the items you're suggesting that S that items 1 3 4 8 9 10 >> those were all pulled for discussion >> discussion >> and then there's a motion right here >> and remedied >> so that they were every single item was
approved >> where's the consent agenda >> okay >> what was approved in the consent agenda >> the the other thing is when We pulled those items and we talked about them. There were several items that staff was going to follow up on and get back to us
on. For instance, remember we talked about the Florida PE on the access lift and there was a time where there was a there was PM time on a delay and there was several items that staff said they were going to get back to us with more explanation and I don't see where that
was done. We'll we'll follow back up and get back with with you on that one a second time, but we mean it this time. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you. >> Virginia, you were next. >> Yes. Thank you. Um I'm glad that that
somebody else also read the minutes down to the the date at the bottom for our next meeting uh to make that correction. And I think that was a problem on the last set of minutes also that that wasn't changed. Um I I appreciated the
the discussion and page and a half or two at the end where it pulled together all of the different discussions that we had on the items pulled. But it was also a little confusing because we are
accustomed to see when you would list FC2 what the discussion was about or FC3 what it was about. So I appreciate that many of the dis much of the discussion
carried over from the different um um there were the same questions or the same discussion but it it was it was good on one hand because it's it uh gave you a synopsis a summary of all the discussion but
confusing on the other hand. So I'm wondering if in the future this is your plan of the way you're going to be doing minutes or was this because there was so much overlap in the various items. >> So there is a couple of things. Um,
one is often times there's a bunch of overlap in and discussion, but the other thing is we have to go back and listen to the meeting again and we have to prepare two separate reports. Um, so we
we prepare the minutes for Corg, but then we have to go back, listen again, and then summarize everything in general for the board. And so it takes us generally about a day or
a day and a half of going back through the court meeting to produce uh the necessary reports. So, what I was attempting to do was to summarize um in general everything that was
happening and be able to present to court the same data that I give to the board. >> I I could appreciate that. I read the board presentation also and saw that this this whole section was given to the board and I'm sure they appreciated that
it was cons, you know, um a good summary. But again, my question remains on the confusion as as John questioned the confusion over the minutes as to what was p what was the who pulled what was the discussion for each item that
did get pulled. So uh I I again I'm um I don't want to put a more bigger burden on you because of the time involved but um if is there some way to to merge
or to give something more to the discussion items that were pulled >> my suggestion to to court or recommendation is let's eliminate the board report and just let the minutes put the explanations
in the category where we had the explanation and discussion be our report to the board. >> I'm I'm okay with that 100%. >> I'm 100% okay with that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I mean, we've always kind of, you know, when Lou Doctor was here, we always kind
of did the report and he did a couple pages and I mean, quite frankly, it doesn't say a lot to the board except we had these 15 items and everybody approved them. >> Okay. Well, we had other discussions and they weren't just automatically approved, but that's our reader digest version to the board.
>> I think the transparency is a good thing, having the full discussion >> and and our minutes are not 10 pages long to the point that the board would just kind of toss them aside and not know what we're talking about. I mean, what's what's the consensus of court? Should we just let the minutes be the
more detailed board report and get that done and get it to the board on time? >> Makes sense to me. Well, there's always the potential of having the job of listening to the meeting a second time as being uh real punishment.
>> Virginia back to the subjugation part all >> subro whatever word it was you used subjugation I'm aware of. >> When when would the minutes be provided? >> Well, I think staff could get those done
in time to get to the board meeting on Wednesday. the the concern the concern I have and sometimes it's it's minor things but sometimes it's less than minor in mistakes and so the ability to at least review
the minutes by us before it's submitted at least that part of it would be important >> the way >> I was going to mention that also that that if they do go as minutes they have to go as draft minutes there haven't been reviewed and approved approved by the
>> typically the process has been even from when back when Lou was doing things is that I would get a copy of board report >> and I would do an edit of the board report as I still do now for the staff send it back to them with edits and then they would finalize that and that would
be what goes to the board. We can do the same thing with the minutes. I can still give it a onceover and it'll still go out as a draft. I think that gives the board more information than the report does and it
allows staff to concentrate just doing it one time. >> Right. As long as they do realize it's a draft and that the final minutes they'll receive those also, don't they? >> Uh I don't know if the board ever gets our final minutes. I don't think so, Virginia.
>> Really? >> Well, they do because they get our >> agenda. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. because the board gets everything we see for a cork agenda. So, they would get the minutes you're looking at right now, which would be the final minutes
>> if if approved. >> Yes. >> I think we make a trial run of dumping the board report and just doing the minutes. And can staff get those done and in time like by Monday at the latest?
>> It'll be the same time that >> the board report would be. Yes, sir. >> Fine. And it please put draft across it. >> Yes, ma'am. You can put a word mark on there. It just says draft across the whole thing. >> Mr. Sanchez, >> there's a line there. I was just going
to say that my name was left off the uh attendees for December. So, just add that in there. >> Oh, for the last meet on the minutes. >> Yeah, on the minutes. >> And my name uh the last letter uh was dropped off. I I deserve an award of a
D. Thank you. Okay, why don't we take the most stuff we find? Michael, >> did you have anything else? Is your name You were your hand was up. >> Covered it all. Thank you very much. >> Very good. All right. Anything else on
minutes? That was the longest discussion on minutes we've ever had. >> No, I'm going to say, can I ask the favor of all online attendees? um when they drop off or come back on, if there's some way that when they come on, this is more because you're all the cork
members are on either in person or I'd love to have you make some sort of notation. I don't care whether you type a chat or something like that because what we see in the room is a box of six and one of them says 44 others are
online. So when people come in and out of me of the meeting, we don't really get to see exactly who that is. I know there's a way to track it, but it's a bit of a challenge to kind of keep track of who's coming in, who's coming out. So if uh in the beginning of the meeting that we take care of that, but like for
example, we had somebody come into the room uh after the start of the meeting. Before we leave, I'm going to make sure that this young lady, her name is announced so that we get her on the on the list of attendees. Um the same thing would be online because that's that's
our challenge in the in the room is figuring out who online came in and came out. So that's all for the future. >> Okay. >> All right. We'll give it a shot to just two minutes and see how that goes and see how the board receives that and see if staff can get that all done in time
to get it to the board so they have it. Okay. Um nothing on court report. All right. We're down to uh the annual election of officers and uh we're not allowed to have any filibusters, no hanging chads,
and no double votes. >> I nominate David Porter for chair. >> I didn't even open the floor for nomination. >> I found 12,000 votes in Georgia. Where do I drop them? >> I second. Virginia
first and a second. >> All right. Any other uh people willing to or wanting to take over running the meetings and be chair? What is that silence I hear? Sorry, who was second? >> Oh, Tomber was second.
>> All right, I guess hearing no other nominations. Uh staff pull us for votes. >> I skip you. >> Excuse me. >> I skip you. >> You got to vote for myself. say loud. >> May not. >> Hello. >> Alexander.
>> Yes, with my thanks and appreciation. >> Porter, >> I suppose so. >> Makaboo. >> Yes. >> Jamal. >> He's still deciding. >> Fasher, >> definitely yes. >> Wilkinson,
>> absolutely yes. >> Lisa Ravis, >> yes. Michael Gelfand. >> Yes. And thank you, David. Appreciate your volunteering and with the time and energy. >> Michael, >> absolutely. Yes. >> Tom Bur,
>> yes. >> Virginia Parish, >> definitely yes. >> Miss Tomkins, >> of course. Yes. Jamal, >> Jim, >> maybe he dropped off. Same point you were just talking about.
>> Yeah. >> Blanket. That happens. >> Okay. So, we'll just uh we'll stand with the 11 votes and we'll identify that it appears that Mr. Mom had to drop off. >> Okay. Uh, open up the nominations for vice chair and I nominate Virginia
Ferris. >> Second. >> We have a second. >> Do we have a second? Uh, any other nominations for vice chair? Hearing none. Nominations are closed. Staff pist for vice chair, please.
>> Does she want it? >> Virginia, do you want it? Yeah, we make a good team. >> Okay, it's fine. >> What's Alexander? >> Yes, we've renewed. Thanks and appreciate it.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Jamal, >> yes. >> Wilkinson, >> yes. And thank you, >> Robert. >> Yes. >> Michael Gilan. >> Yes. Michael Gita.
>> Yes. >> Tom Burger, >> yes. >> Virginia Parish, >> yes. Thank you. >> And that was just endorsed by the doggy. >> It's something about Virginia's voice. >> I know. The dog
likes me or doesn't like me. I'm not sure. >> Miss Tomkins. >> Yes. Okay. All right. We'll also go for with the 11 votes. >> Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you everyone. We will continue running
things. Uh review and set the next agenda. The only thing I would request of staff is go back through as John Chesher meant mentioned at the last meeting for things that staff was meant to follow up on and uh even if you can't follow up, make sure they get on the
follow-up list so we keep a track of them. >> Those were the FC1 items. Yes. >> Yeah, I think so. Yep. Uh, anything else that work wants for our next meeting for staff to uh, kind of dig into? I don't think we had anything as we were
talking. >> Anything else by members? All right. If not, we are adjourned. >> Thank you, David. Thank you everyone for the information and happy new year. Yep. >> Happy new year, everybody. >> Thank you. >> Happy new year.
>> Happy new year. Thanks, guys.