Jamald Cork. Alihan, Office of the General Council. Michael Tubio, facilities construction. David Dolan, facilities management. David Porter, Cork. Barbara Meyers, construction purchasing. John Treasure, Cork.
Oh, Jim Adams, facilities construction. Juliana Montoyas, facilities construction. Julie Edwards, DLR Group. John Levenson, Rail Enterprises, representing Cisco Architects. Trey Hley, Leeway Daily Rain, Randolph, Construction Group.
George Perez, Facilities Construction, Char Construction, Greg Launch, Facilities Management, Purle Construction, Guella, Ple Construction, John Construction. Okay, staff, go ahead and do online
people for us. Bruce Alexander, Frank Makaboo, Evan Wilkinson, Lisa Ravvice, present. Michael Gelfin,
present. Tom Burger here here. Christopher Tommpkins. He had requested an excuse, didn't he? Yeah. And um board member Ranch is here.
Good morning, Darthy. Hadn't Mr. Tomkins requested a excused. I did not receive it. Did you David? I believe he did. You're right. I think from last at the end of last meeting. I still have some gray matter inside. It was like when the invitation went out
originally, he responded at that time. Okay. I have nothing to report going down our agenda. So, anyone with a conflict of interest today or been approached by a lobbyist about anything, we will review. Hearing the silence. I take that to be
no. Any changes to the agenda by anyone. Agenda stands as written. Public comments. Any public comments? Seeing none. Consent agenda. If you're on the consent
agenda, everyone and I wanted that also. Aland. Okay. FC2, I'll pull that. Okay. Mua FC3
FC4, PC1, EC2. PC45 PC6. I wanted that one. PC7. Excuse me, David. Can I go back to PC
two uh two and pull that one? Sure. Oh, it's a one time offer though. Oh, also my apologies. I missed PC1 if that. Okay. All right. Move the items not pulled to go forward.
Okay. Let me finish up on PC7. Um I have wanted that pled. Anyone else? Gelfen for PC6. Okay. Okay. And now I move them forward. Before we make before we go further, can I can I
also make sure uh for the record that France has uh joined us. Uh so we now have another present. Okay. Virginia made the motion to allow the ones not pulled to go forward. Need a second on that. Second. Second by Mr.
Any other discussion? Staff, please. [Music] Porter. Yes. France Makavo. Yes. Jim, yes. John Teser, yes. Kevin Wilkinson, yes.
Lisa Revis, yes. Michael Galpen, yes. Michael Guida, yes. Tom Burgger, yes. Fish, yes. [Music] Okay, let's go to FC1. Um, Mike Way to
start us off. [Music] Caught me off guard. How about Michael Gelfin? All right, Michael Gelfan, you go ahead and start FT1. All righty. Let me just Well, I can go first then.
My only comments on Roosevelt and only using that as um a lessons learned. Um, I kind of read between the lines with Roosevelt that we really didn't know what the project was going to be when we started it because it seemed like lots
and lots of sizable change orders have happened for unforeseen conditions, for things that couldn't have been investigated and for program changes. Um, my comment is that I think if we ever have a project like that next time, we really need to know what we're going to
do before we start. So, that's all I had on Rosidel. And we we we acknowledge there there is a certain amount of the historic nature of the building that led to some of the
unforeseen uh components. Um and uh yes, there were program uh additions that were outside of staff control uh that came to us well after. Um but I think I'm looking at the overall global picture where yes, it's outside
of construction staff control, but need to be told stop and and others. I'll just leave it at that. others. We we we appreciate that and I'll say that no nobody makes uh we
don't like starting all over again either for the same reason. So yes, we we appreciate that and acknowledge that. All right. So Mike, we I think I had some clarification. So if you go to page five, David, um two, I
mean it talks about SPA, senior project administrator. I just like to know who that is and is that a player in school board or is that a CM? That's our um internal staff. Our senior project administrators are senior
project manager is what they are. So they're they're our representative for the project. They have a name for historic Roosevelt is I'm trying to I don't know all the players. I only know you two. I don't walk around the building too much around. Oh, I know. We have we have um 30 something project managers. So expect to
know them all. that um Joseph is the um project manager for that project. That was Joseph council is our for Billy. Oh, Beltrot. Yeah. And a similar question if you go down to
item six. Um yeah, we got a department director. Is that you, Mr. Dolan? No, that's me, Chief. Who would that? Okay. So, you made some decisions on uh what's going on here. Okay. And the department manager would be more
myself. Okay. Dorothy, maybe what might be helpful for the next meeting is give us an or chart. Sure. Give us an or chart of your department and you know names. I have a request for those of us who are
online. you're talking over each other or or we can't always hear what you're saying. So, if you'd try to be careful so that we can understand what the names and what you're saying. I we appreciate that. Thank you.
So, we for clarity, sir, um um to kind of follow through for uh Miss Ferris's comment, um David Broes and Maris Canyon are our two general managers. of course goes without saying our third general
manager is Darthothy. um she's the star of the show of course, but um those three have a certain level of delegated authority um according to policy. And then above those three, the next level up is the department director. Um that's
the facilities construction department and that person is um Michael Tubio. And then above Michael is the uh chief of facilities management. That's me, Dave Dolan. And then above me, the delegated authority goes to the chief
operating officer, which is Mr. Sanchez, and then of course the superintendent on that. Okay. Thank you. We go to item seven. Um, historic Roosevelt. I didn't see a a
question on this on the rebuttals or the responses, but 90,000 for the sand blasting. I don't know. Seemed kind of high. for this thing. But have you so tell me what have you done to
to justify that rather than just a letter from the architect saying hey we had a third party estimator look they didn't do a thorough review. Uh what's involved there is roof choice which have a lot of different members. So one you're on a lift and two you're getting every little crevice and part of it
because if you leave as you know if you leave any steel not exposed if you don't catch it they'll come back later and keep rusting. So you're going to make sure all the rust gets off and then they went up there and coated everything after. It's very very labor intensive. Um we did not expect that amount of uh work to be needed on those from our
investigation at the beginning of the project because it was what we can see. But once we un we had to take the entire roof off the facility. So when we did that we exposed we did a structural analysis our they were there monitoring the work as well to make sure it was done properly. So, so you had to get on you had to actually
stand blast the top of the the joist stand after the roof surface the surface of it. Yeah. So, it was like open to the sky. Yes. Oh, wow. Okay. That's what you'll see on the photos. It's still open to the sky. That's all that stuff came.
All right. And I see there's a department chief. So, who who is that? That would be me. It's not really a department chief, but language is is chief chief of facilities. That's me. Yes. All right. I think that's all I have for that. Michael Giland.
Um, yeah. Thank you both of you for your questions. Uh, they answered some that I had on the Roosevelt on number five. Is there a reason why this was not added to the uh request that we saw or the change order we saw last month?
Didn't we see a change for the cosmetology uh area with all the you know workups? That was the equipment. So this is the infrastructure to go along with that equipment. So that that change order was to put the equipment under the CM scope
as part of that coordination effort. Um, and these are the infrastructure changes that need to be done to accommodate that specific equipment. Uh, but why why wasn't it all presented at one time? I mean, if we're ordering equipment for
which we don't have uh proper power supplies or we don't have a power supplies that are required, why not submit it all at the same time so we can see the actual cost? They weren't being done at the exact same time. So, we had to put it under
the the scope of the contractor. And what what happens there is that they have to get their stuff involved. We get the manufacturer involved. So, we didn't know all these costs at that time. that we decided to transfer it over. We had to develop these um that equipment you have it's kind of you have one
manufacturer, you have one set of requirements and you do a different cosmetology chair. It's a whole different you know power source, a whole different location, all that kind of stuff. So it's and there's water and other utilities with it. So all that coordination had to be done. So we we know we wanted to transfer it over to
the CM so they can do that coordination. Um that's when we did started that change order and then we kind of figured out what needed to be done and that's when we came back with this um this is what actually needs to be done to the infrastructure. So related, but it's not the same.
And not to say that this is necessarily the case, it does raise a a good point is is that uh sometimes those there are change orders that we might actually have a change order for the materials first because we know we need to get the materials ordered, get that show on the
road while we work through the details of what infrastructure needs to be implemented. So they may not necessarily while they may be work the contractor may be working to do it all, they may need the change order executed for the materials first so they can quickly get
that in the works for fabrication and delivery while the rest of the change order gets uh cleaned up uh so that sometimes that it is broken apart for that purpose. So, um, my concern is not just for this
item, but we've seen in the past what I'll refer to as a mission creep, if you would, where we approve an initial stage without having a true idea of what the expense implications
or the domino effect on the on the project is going to be. Um, you know, we we've seen, of course, with Roosevelt, but there's other projects we've had this on, and I would request u the same
way in in in my world, if we're ordering significant equipment, the proposal comes to my desk with what is going to be necessary down the line to to install, implement, or whatever.
So I have before I start the first phase of expenses, I have an idea as to what the true impact is going to be rather than point by point where we can't get out of it if you would. Um so that's
just a request. I'd like to see that going. If not, you know, I'll be complaining more and more about mission creep. Um I'm not going to repeat David's words. You've heard me over and over again about uh the historic
properties. This time we're over $100,000 between the what we have three plus one at number two coming on in here. Um, and whether you know literally from Bokeh to
Jupiter, I've been very concerned and in between of these projects where we just don't see what's occurring and the the district gets caught between all the different players on these things and we have nowhere to go except that our
wallet is open. So that's enough of my pontificating. Sorry. No, sorry. All right, Jim, you had a question. Yeah. Uh, on the levels of authority, um, I was interested. Thank you for that question. Um, is there a document that
has levels of authority laid out? Is can that be can that be shared? Talk about it today. Yeah, we will see. It's part of it. There was a policy that identified it. Today's new policies and revisions, okay, change that. So, today replaces whatever existed before.
Okay. Thank you. Um, oh, Michael, um, you said there were water changes also with related to this equipment for Roosevelt. No, it needed coordination. I don't think there was any cost change for the water. Okay. Because I mean, this is only for
electrical. I wanted to make sure next month we wouldn't get one for plumbing. All right. Anything else on FC1? Need a motion. Move to go forward. All right. Need a second. Second. Second by John Chesher. Any
other comments discussion? Staff pull us please on FC1. David Porter. Yes. France Makaboom. Yes. Jim, yes. John Cher, yes. Kevin Wilkinson, yes. Lisa Res.
Yes. Michael Gelfin. Yes. Michael Guider. Yes. Tom Burgger. Yes. Virginia Parish. Yes. Okay. FC2 Mike Weer, you pulled it.
Um, can you go to the first page, I guess, please? David, this this being the first page. Yes. So, it has uh change order 32 and change order 34. They both reference 120 days.
One's 129 and one's 120. Those are different consecutive days that were added to the project. Yes. Yes. One to do the fire alarm and one to do the um what the other one was B&B. Yeah.
Balance at the end. Okay. All right. So that's separate. That was my clarification I need to get. And if you go to page three, the top right hand corner, it says the change date was 10 9 2024.
Page three. Page three. Yeah, that one right there. Okay. Um, why are we saying it now? I mean, it seems like a long time before we get the change order come in for days extended.
That's a very good question. Um, when we received this change order and we were reviewing it, we were pretty much close to the end of the construction work itself. And so we asked, is there going to be any more time requested on top of
this? And the answer was yes. We said, well, when we're going to hold this then and wait and just submit it all together so you guys know the total amount of additional time rather than peacemailing it. Okay. kind of like it was done that way because there were zero costs. So it wasn't like the
contractor was being held for year for getting paid. Correct. And and we've already talked about in in past about the TMB that's the it's usually the last thing 300 days later or whatnot that we end up having to do the TMB to meet final completion requirements.
So that is being discussed in internally to try to uh rectify the time frame for test and balance. Okay. Good. Yes. Yes sir. Is the project complete? Dorothy, there's an SBA that's sitting back listening to this going, "Oh,
um, my understanding is there's probably one more change order coming, but I believe the work itself is actually complete." So, and it had to do it was regarding the fire alarm system itself, the additional things they had to do to it. So there is one more change order
coming and then hopefully we'll take this project to close out in reconciliation. Okay, last question on the fire alarm. Um there's a note on one of the pages. Go to page eight where it says that the
fire alarm devices were reduced from 140 to 38. the engineer walked with the uh the building services, construction services people and they I guess were able to reduce
the devices. Um why would not there not be a credit? So that none of that was at that point. So those were all added devices from the there were what was that? Okay. So they were they were going to replace the panel and that's what was in
the scope of the project I believe. So they as they walked it, some of the devices weren't compatible with the P panel once they did that. So they were able to look at um initially they thought they're going to have to replace that full number, whatever that number was, 130 130. Um and after looking through that,
they were able to reduce down to the 38 that they actually needed to replace. But that took a lot of coordination with BCS, the vendor electrical to figure out really what needed to be done in there because this is this is schoolwide. So um it it affect there's those are
existing devices that 140 was not in their quote um that was just part of how we got to the 38 was we started the history basically. So this the original scope of the work was just to replace the control panel and leave devices as is.
Exactly. Okay. So that's part of the basement. No. Okay. No sir. Hey everybody. This is Ken Tro SBA on the project. First though from Dorothy on the other additional change order and his kitchen hood fans it was a
miss on the design. There will be a forthcoming change order. That work has not been done yet. Secondly with fire alarm devices. This was a complete system change out but there were there were uh decisions made
and those decisions were incorrect. There were devices that were not covered by this by the vendor. We asked questions. They were devices that were not needed that they had covered which reduced the quantity. But this was always a complete system change out.
When you say system though that uh the question still stands then about the devices though if they had the question is they had all the devices to be changed out in their bid and now we're changing less than there should have been a credit back but I don't believe that's the case right there wouldn't have been a credit back but there were we had the district had
made some decisions not to replace devices some by code did not be need to be replaced such as duct detectors they missed the portables which they needed to provide because that was theoretically on them. So when we had
covered the portables via previous change order. So but there were there were items you would walk in a room they covered maybe a speaker probe yet there could be a heat detector in the room and they never cut caught the heat detector. So, we flagged it and there were pool stations that had been deleted
prior to in the design effort by building code services after the MSJ incident because we didn't want to have another incident by someone pulling a pole station and have in an active shooting scenario. So,
there there's there's some back and forth history on it, but that's basically the gist. Does that help? Well, it sounds to me like it was not a one for one device replacement. The engineer actually went
in and redesigned the system. So, they were installing basically a parallel system and then eliminating the old system. When BCS went and inspected, they said, "Well, we think you should have this device here and this device there in addition to what you've already
designed." Um, so it was all in the the 140 devices was in addition to what was already on the plants and they went back and forth and negotiated it and said, "Okay, well BCS thinks we should have something
here, but because of such and such, we don't need it there." So when they finally got their back and forth done, there were 38 additional devices added, not 140. But 140 was originally in the bid. No,
no, no. In the bid, was it? None. Just the panel. Just the panel. No, no, no. That was my There was a design and there were devices that were installed, new devices. They did a whole new parallel system, but it wasn't a one forone
replacement. So, it wasn't necessarily here's a heat detector, we need a heat detector. In most cases, that's what it was. But like Ken was saying, we've worked with BCS and o over and over and we are reducing the number of actual pull
stations that we have like in our hallways because we don't want people tripping these things intentionally. Um, false alarms intentionally. So maybe now they're located in the classroom or maybe they're located just in the admin
office. So there's it it was fully designed for a complete system. BCS reviewed it, but during the inspection, the walkthrough inspection, they said, "Well, we think you still need." So the full system was installed according to
the engineer, BCS said, "We want more." And they negotiated the number of more. So here was the full system and we added another 38. And that's what this change order is for. Okay. And the building, I'm assuming, is
fully sprinklered. Not in that campus. No. Oh, okay. Virginia, I Well, can I interrupt real quick, Virginia? I have to know. I'll be back. Okay. Thanks, Tom. Bye. Sorry, Virginia.
Okay, that's okay. We'll miss you. Um, I think you may have answered my question. I was concerned that that we were without fire protection, but what you're saying is that we're parallel systems. So, you did not bring the new one on until or turn the old one off until the
new one was working. That's correct. That is correct. Yes. Thank you. And it's a it's a a full fire alarm system for the building, correct? If it's not sprinklered, you need smoke detectors down the hallway
every certain amount of feet in every room. So, you got more smoke detectors than anything else in that in that building. Probably true. Okay. Correct. All right. I'm satisfied. Okay, David. Yes, John. On this one, we see a lot of change
orders on fire alarm systems a lot. So my comment is just staff and um the building department and the engineer need to do better job in the future on fire alarms. A lot of lot of change orders.
I think this predated supposedly the police department. Did the police department handle the fire alarms or they're only security? They're only security. Okay. So this would have only been building code services. Yeah. Yeah. maintenance handles the maintenance on fire alarms.
Yes, that's true. Yeah, they all need to be on the same page a little bit better so we don't have this 11th hour. Yeah, they are pretty complicated in the fact of the devices being able to talk to the panel. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. You almost have to
look at every individual device to or because you know our schools have been updated over time. So it's not one system throughout the whole school. So it's you know we're using vendors, right? Yeah. Well, I would think if we're getting ready to do a renovation in six months on a school, the vendor can easily go
in, look at the panel, look at the devices and should be able to tell you which ones are going to be compatible with the new panel they're putting in. It's their system. David, can I speak to that? Yes. Go ahead, David. We I spoke to maintenance on this. I'm initiating the same thing on
Frontier Elementary. JCI Simplex has got the system. There is a way during the precon through voltage sensing they said that they can determine the field devices that are not compatible if we do a fire control channel change out only
to voice evac. So I will catch that on a precon. It will be a future change event so we don't have communication incompatible devices with the new fire alarm control panel going forward. Okay. That should become part of our new procedures. Well, that's during precon,
pre-construction, which means bids are already in place. Should happen prior to bids are not in place at precon. Um, and also as a part of the effort with the fire alarm panels, um, maintenance
actually has that voltage device. So, whenever we know we're going to have a panel, they are now going out and testing those devices and letting us know. Um, precon is is figuring it out. We're we're not we don't have bids at that time. Gotcha.
And we actually hired somebody on staff. Um, his name's Calvin about I don't know four or five months ago now that was from our one of our fire alarm vendors that's now staffed that will help help mitigate some of those changes. Um, good. So we have an in-house expert now
on smart alarms. All right. So it sounds like what we're seeing here will really be mitigated mostly new systems and proced. But yeah, we're we are working on trying to reduce that.
You know, we see in the industry a tremendous amount of changes at the end of projects because these are life safety issues. So you're going to see these changes. I think regardless as we go forward, we're not going to eliminate um devices. We're not going to eliminate smoke detectors. They come in at the end
of the job and you see a tremendous amount of changes. So, it's it's a matter of the inspectors, the the fire fire marshal, all of those folks coming in and making changes arbitrarily at the end of projects. That's what we see in the industry.
And we don't let them close it unless the whole system and all the devices are working. That's right. When they start a project sometimes that's working, it's fine. They get in there, change it out. By that time, it's failed and while they're on site, we say, "Hey, we need to change our list. It's working." Because they can't walk away with a system that's not fully
functional. So, there will be those kind of issues that come up. And I think I was from an owner's perspective, um, I know it's kind of silly, but um, I I might be inclined to tell my designers, don't overdesign in the beginning. let BCS come back and
tell me later because I as much as I do want to make sure that we design satisfactory to make sure that everybody's secure. It's that balancing act of do I go hog wild and put in 139 devices and have them dial it back or do I have them put
in 40 devices and then have BCS come back in later on and add it's it's I don't I'm not saying that there's necessarily a right answer. Um but to um Sar's point, that's it's a it's a challenge that we um struggle with. And
are we gonna have change orders for deductive change orders because we put in had a designer put in a lot and then take a credit back and and it comes down to the judgment of the individual inspector at the end of the job. That's true. That individual inspector can say um I think this this and this should be
the way. And you have to go back and do it. another inspector can come along and say, "No, I I liked it this way." So, it's it's arbitrary. We don't want to go in there and pay for replacement of every single device in the school that may not be needed as well. Um, am I hearing that we
uh plan in our contingency budget for this or did I not on this particular project? Is that the question? Generally, I guess Michael, I think Michael's asking, do we put contingency in there
to cover kind of the after the fact walk through by BCS to know we we got a few shekels that we're putting in there to cover the extra stuff we don't know about from general apart from general contingency though
for this particular matter, do we up the contingency for these issues. So every contingency is specific based on the project itself. So the construction manager um evaluates the risk on the project of basically what
they're putting in and establishes a contingency that we negotiate fair for that project. So um Lakeworth High I think we probably would have had a substantial because because of the age of the his and history of the school right that's um that would have triggered a little
bit more money to cover things like and on this particular change order all we're asking for is additional time. Yeah. This is if we paid for the devices that was in a previous change, correct? Request.
The um second part on this and as a former uh board of adjustment chair dealing with uh fire variance issues. I know how tough it is to deal with the fire marshals around the county. Um, is
this the are the inspectors are they municipal, county, both? So, our building department. So, can we try to coordinate with the our own inspectors as to what their
variances are so that if we are pulling different inspectors, they are not providing different criteria. That seems to be something that we should be able to control, not to skip or uh ignore
items, but to do it right with, you know, uniformity. Michael, that would be uh something fabulous. And if it could ever happen with any building department anywhere on the globe, we'd be the first.
I'd like to Michael, I'd like to respond to your question, to your statement. Me being an engineer, um, I have to rely my designs on on the National Electric Code and the National Fire Protection
Agency codes and they clearly set forth how to design a building. Uh, it's the interpretation of it that gets construed between building department and fire departments. Um and and if they do want to add more to what the code standards
are, then that has to be amended and and and put in some documents that BCS might have or each city municipal would have as well. Uh so they have to amend it to make it more strict than what the code minimums are.
Well, yes and no. We've all been there where the inspectors out there going, I want another I want another detector there. No, it's not needed. The code doesn't say it. You want to pass or you want to leave this building unoccupied for a while. Exactly. I asked the I asked the the contractor
what code is he referring to his code. It doesn't he has to stand on a leg which we've all been there. It doesn't happen unfortunately. That's my that's our problems. That's that's what we deal with. It just seems
that we're one hand is beating up the other hand. We're the same organization. agreed separate responsibilities. But if we're at the point of being at the whim of which inspector we pull and
the same issue gets two or three or four different perspectives from our own inspectors, then we ought to be sitting down with them uh and saying, you know, come to an agreement on this and whoever is
supervising that staff should. Again, in my world, for example, when we have administrative judges that are coming with disparit decisions, at some point there's a sitdown with them all and they come to consensus so that citizens have
a genuine expectation. We uh we do, you're absolutely right, Mr. Gelfan. um the building code services department um the inspectors there are some inspectors inhouse for BCS and they also
use an outsourced service um for some of their inspections and the director of building code services who is also the certified building official um does meet with them regularly does regularly work
through a lot of those questions and it we're making it appear as though or maybe it's appearing as though we just blindly do whatever they tell us. I will say Ken Troche will be a perfect example that SBA that's on here. He will fight with the inspectors. He will argue with
the inspectors. He will go back to the director of BCS and ask them to sit down with the inspectors. We do in fact work the system. Um, but there is no well I I kind of want to give that level of
independence that the inspectors have because by the way I'm also the uh oversee the building code services department. Um, and I can't step in I even if myself as the chief I can't step in and demand that the BCS
do something or or eliminate certain code requirements. Their license is is critical. that's that's what they rely upon and um you know we can ask the BCS to to reconsider and they do and they do work with their inspectors to fine-tune
things but it's not a I can't have anybody just step in and say make those things go away. So we do work with them uh in an attempt to try to smooth the systems over. How do we do that upfront? I think that's your original point. Um
great great great question. I would love it. As Mr. Porter said, uh I think we do the a pretty good job and I think each and every project we learn a little bit more and we kind of get a little bit better at it, but it's never going to be a has never proven to be a perfect
system. So, I'm not saying you step in and overrule or try to water it down. In fact, if it deserves a higher level of work, more expense, whatever, then then we do it. What else? What I'll suggest is that as
you have your quarterly or semiannual sitdowns with BCS to the extent we are getting inconsistent uh requests from the inspectors that those be pointed out and we request
BCS to come to a determination as to what is going to be required so that your side or the folks the project administrators are not being caught in having a second guess each time.
Point well taken and we will certainly continue to do that. Um, thank you. All right. Okay. Uh, Mike Wy, you had pulled this. Anything else? No. Want to make a motion? I'll make a motion to move to the board. Okay. FC2 has been second.
Had a second. Any other discussion, comments? Staff ps, please. Yes. France Makavo, yes. Jim Al, yes. John Chesher, yes. Wilkinson, yes. Lisa Revis, yes.
Michael Gelfan, yes. Michael Guida, yes. Virginia Parish, yes. Okay. PC1 Michael. Hang on. Did we not have three or four? Nothing.
We Okay, Michael. Yeah, PC1, you asked to pull it right on I believe it was the uh C document page four on that there was a discrepancy
with reference to the um uh bankruptcy and then there was a notation underneath it was dealing with stokum sm
and it's on page four of 191. one. No, it wouldn't be that. It's on um the C document. Thank you. PC1C. What page was it? 191. I think he said nine of 140
nine nine of 149. Yeah. Thank you. The bottom of the page. There we go. Okay. So, um we have a no and then we have a yes. So,
yes. purchasing agent for this one. I don't have an answer right now. No. Going to have to look into that, Michael. All righty. How do you want to handle that
in terms of moving forward? I can ask him right now. Just you're gonna reach out now, Michael. We may might be able to come back to this. All righty. I just make a motion to postpone to the end of the meeting on this one then. Thank you.
Okay. Good. All right. PC2 Mike. All right. Um PC2 and PC3 were both awarded to Apex Roofing. Um, first of all,
whoever reviewed them, uh, do do these projects have the same construction timeline? And if they do, what justification has Apex given you that they could support both projects at the same time?
So during the bid evaluation process, part of that process is reaching out to the lowest responsive responsible bidder to make sure that they have the resources to complete the job that you know that that they were the lowest bid on. Um and in both cases, in all cases,
if it's coming towards you, we have a letter stating that their bid is um they fully understand the specifications of the bid and the timeline and that they're um fully prepared with the appropriate resources to complete the
project. I mean, that's that's what we have to go on. Are these scheduled during the summer or throughout the year to do? Um do we know these are going forward right away? Yeah. So they'll they'll work evenings and and nights and then weekends. Yeah.
Because I didn't see a schedule on here and I didn't know when the anticipated start dates were. All right. With the roof and we award them their what their anticipated start right away. Most of So I just wanted to bring it to everyone's attention that it it could be
a pinch point. Uh anything could happen. We'll find out. uh and that uh there should be some um attention brought to that uh during pre-construction meetings that start. So
probably that the CMS uh would have to communicate for both projects and make sure they're not pulling resources that the other CM needs and these we're not going through a CM on these roof straight over. Okay. So it's our project managers that'll talk and Okay.
I was uh happy to see so many bids roots and fairly tight bidding. So that was good to see. All right. So I'll make a motion to the board. Okay. Had a first. Need a second. Second. Second by John Chesher.
Comments. Staff, please. DC2. David Porter. Yes. Brance Makabu. Yes. De Mald. Yes. John Chesher. Yes. Kevin Wilkinson. Yes. Lisa Ravvice, yes.
Michael Gilan, yes. Michael Guido, yes. Virginia Parish, yes. Okay, let's get on to uh EC6. That was the next one pulled. I pulled it and Michael Gelfan, you pulled it.
My question was, I'm still puzzled by what the $3,865 number means in terms of reality. Is that a dollar per hour? No, it's not. Um, so when we put a bid out, we have to tell the vendors how we're going to evaluate their bid
pricing. We have a couple of different options of different ways to do that. Um, we're looking for line item pricing basically, so that whenever whatever our needs are that come up, we have set pricing for that. And but the way to evaluate that, there's there's a couple
of different ways to do it. We could do line item pricing and award the lowest line item to whoever that bidder is on that line. So, we would have multiple vendors um to reach out to. We don't want that on this type of project. So, that wasn't an option. Another option is
to do a sample um project and you know include some of those line items for something that we typically see. Um, but in that case, sometimes we see biders will lowball the items that they know that they're being evaluated on and then
the prices are a little bit higher, much higher for the other items that we don't typically use. But in the case that we have to use those items, you know, that's not really um in the district's best interest. So, it's just simply a way to evaluate if we had more biders.
We take whatever their line item price is for each one of these lines, total it up, and whoever would be the lowest. It's it's it's the option we chose for for this type of bid because of the market conditions.
They are there. I think there's only one other, you know, we reached out to a bunch of different um firms for this and we really didn't get great response. So, we had one bidder on this and it's our incumbent. Yeah. And they and it's the same prices as the last bid.
Okay. All right. That answered my question. Michael Gelfand, you had pulled this also. Yes. So, I'm sort of uh I have the same relationship. So, the 3865 that is the anticipated
expense for one uh move or No, no, no. It's just it's just simply a total of of all of those line items, the individual pricing.
So, see 40 $450, $65, 20, $130, $450. It's just the total. It's just a means of evaluation. Every project that will come up, it will be dependent on what what we need. So if
we need, you know, a half a day or a full day of the crane and then four men rigging crews, you know, they'll put together a quote for us based on this pricing, this line item pricing. So these are unit prices. And I I understand in El Michael, if we had five
people bidding this, they'd all have to fill out these eight line items for what they want to charge. Yeah. And that's how we would base low to high on these particular line items for what they want to charge. Now, now I get it.
So, if that's So, um, if it's the total, I'm just looking at the first two lines. So, if you have 450* 8 hours plus 2500, that's going to be over 38.65.
Now, they're just adding up the actual number. So 450 + 2500 + 65 + 130 + 450 + 100 plus 85 and 85. That comes out to the 3865.
No, it doesn't. Pretty sure it does. Yeah, I don't think they would. That 450 and 450 is already 900. Add that to 2500. You already got 34. We're not multiplying. Then you got six * 8
using 450. The other four is 38. I just did it. Is the math right? It is right. I just did it. So these line items if you had five biders they would have all been given this form and say fill it in. Yes. And we would have looked at that
line where it's 3,800 and went who whoever's left take a look at. Okay. All right. Just trying to find a way to compare apples to apples. Yeah, I understand that. and they would be required to to stick with these pricing with their actual bid for a job.
Correct. All right. Well, you know, I hope we explain that to them so that we don't have someone that extrapolates, for example, the 8 time 450 when they do the totals. Um, second is I if this is the sole bidder, that's why we don't have
any um other bids listed or evaluation. Correct. All right. It's a very unique service and we've used Merchant before for probably 10 years I'm guessing. Yeah. To do all of our concrete moving. Um they actually moved one of the
seminal ridge houses and that went very smoothly. So good. Anything else, Michael? That's it. Okay. Need a motion. Move to go forward. Okay. Second. Second. Second by John Chesher.
Any other discussion? Ola stat, please. David Porter, yes. France Makavu, yes. Yes. Don Chesher, yes. Kevin Wilkinson, yes. Lisa Res, yes.
Michael Galan, yes. Michael Guida, yes. Virginia Parish, yes. Okay. Uh, PC7, I was the only one that pulled that. Um, in the response back from staff, I'm reading it that we're
putting in modified bumen roof and then we're covering it with a TMCO fluid applied system. And I guess I'm wondering why do we need to cover a brand new modified bumen roof. Usually we put the fluid applied systems
on, you know, 10, 15 year old roofs to gain another 10 years of life out of them. I'm sorry. Yeah, it's multiple. I think that Can you repeat that for David? David was in the weeds the other day, but you Yeah, David and I talked about this
because I was the one who brought this up that it really wasn't worded correctly. Your response back was we're putting a modified Benjamin roof on the building. Correct. And then we're covering it with a coating. And my point is, if we're putting a brand new modified BMAN roof with a 20-year warranty on it, why are
we then covering it with a coating? I thought the coating was for a different area. Is that right? But the response back was that replace uh Yeah, the trim coat goes over the the flat roof. Flat roof will be removed down to the deck, replaced with a fluid applied
coating over the new modified bument system. So that was why I still had a question. Yeah. Are we really intending to cover a brand new roof with a coating? If not, then that's the answer. That was what was specified.
Coding over the modified bitchmen. That kind of voids out the modified bitchman when you're putting another coding over top of it. I think that needs to be looked at further because I don't know if you're getting what you intended.
Is Russ on the call? I'd asked Russ to be on the call today. here with the architect do it on followup but I you know and and and if the spec said modified bmen and coding over top it's coming
is that part of our master spec for design I know go to page eight on this one you can see the scope of work and it doesn't say anything about modify bitchmen in there
just shows the fluid applied roof coding system. We'll have to look over the over the deck. Doesn't sound right. We can't just do that over deck. That's right. Wish I would have clipped the detail of
the construction drawings. In either way, maybe the construction drawings are calling out for a new modified bidman roof with a coating over top and then I question that and we will respond. Okay.
All right. I didn't have anything else on that. Um, Michael, quick question. What is pseudoistoric? The building would be 100 years old next year. So I guess that's the term the architect chose to call it. It's not a it's not historically registered. So
he's calling it pseudo or historic. It's very old. Very old. So the very old but not quite too old. The architect is the one that gave it that name. Yeah, I think so. I think we take that name off of there. Anytime you run the word historic into there, we actually have a historic
policy. And if something's not designated either, you know, historic for any reason by the school board, I don't think we should be calling it that. Yeah, we we have the historic itself has has a definition but
historic significance is a phrase we use to refer to older ones that don't necessarily meet a year may have some sort of um character nature that makes them uh draw the community into them
that kind of thing. So we use the phrase historical significance as opposed to historic. So we don't use that term of yeah age and character about anyone around the table. I appreciate that. Thank you.
That's what I was going to say. Pseudo attorney pseudo attorney. That's a whole another problem. But with laser printers we can make up any documents. That's right. So, so um in a year or two when
it becomes historic, does this school board want it to become historic or will No, we do not. It's just an old building. It is building. It's an old building and it has no potential to become historic. Uh it could. So, we don't want to label it historic
in the future. We don't generally It's an old building. We have lots of school buildings that are old buildings and they're still working just fine. Yeah, there's a there's a lot of um people involved with making those decisions. sometimes at the state level, sometimes at the city level, sometimes
district level. So, um, depends on who you have looking at it. So, all right. Um, do we have a motion on PC7? Not yet. Do you want a motion if you still have this question, David? Yeah.
Yeah. Well, well, the work's got to get done. I just think it needs to be clarified even by staff as to what work are we really doing and and what what meets our real spec regardless of what the architect might have put on drawing. That's the thing. All these prices are based on the design. They all seem to be
very competitive. They all saw the bid the same exact way. It's a bid we want to employ. We can clarify the details behind it. We'll clarify because usually when we get questions about it by the roofers, too, because it doesn't seem I think there's there's a misstep somewhere in there. We'll figure it out.
Well, it could just be in the right. Yeah, I'm I'm okay letting it go forward to come back with clarification. Yeah, I was going to say [Music] I'm I'm I cannot vote for this just to
move forward because the specs don't appear to match what we want. So David, are you saying that this is what what is the threshold to allow this actually to move forward and maybe staff needs to tell us how
they want to handle this? Well, I think it'll be clarified by this afternoon with an email getting sent back out to all court members. I'm trying to look up the detail right now. Um, I don't know if it'll help
at all, but if I look at that different [Music] old thing and complete tear off the new modified bitchmen over other areas. That's what it looks like. That's what I'm saying. I think the write up is just not clear enough. Y
do some research though. Michael, I'm okay with letting this go forward because I really do think it's the staff writeup that confused the matter and that as Jim said with an older building, we're going to get not one but a couple of different types of
roofing um to address the different areas. So, I think that's all that needs to be. There's definitely three different types of areas. You have the flat roof. You have what I would call trim the barrel tile roofs. Yeah. And then you also have some shingles on
one separate building. Understand? But I'm just This is really just a flat roof because that's the only place you'd put fluid applied. Yes. But if there's some fluid if there are some modified areas that are in good shape that
our standard process and there may be other areas that are soaked all the stripped to the deck and the right seems to be cutting in. Yeah, I'm not certain if I'm the only
one, but I'm getting a lot of cutting in and losing what's being said by the folks in the uh in the room. The same here. You you cut out. We didn't hear what you were saying, David. Okay. Um, nothing I can do about it. I
don't know if staff can do anything about it. Any better now or you still getting cutting in and cutting out? Better. Okay. Might have been just a glitch. David, what was your comment or question you had? I thought No. So, is is your question I'm just trying
to understand. Is your question, can fluid be applied over We're going to clarify the scope. Just clarify the scope. And if the fluid is being applied over an existing roof, that's what it should have said. And I'm fine with that because that's what we do. Okay.
I think that's what you're going to find. And that's likely what we're going to find, right? When you look at the drawings, it's it goes all the way back. It's being taken down to the deck. All the flat roof is being taken to the deck. All right. Well, then we got a problem. That doesn't If fluid is still meant to go over top
of a brand new roof, brand new roof. I don't want to deny this because you have to move on with the work. But I think it does need clarification from staff. If we approve this and it does get scope gets modified, then we might be looking
at a change order in the future. This is not ready for prime time. So, and that's the problem is that it's it's a problem. I mean, if there's an emergency, then staff will have to deal with that. But for our purposes and
our review, I don't see how we can vote yes on this. Uh well, I I again I go back to the f the point the agenda item as it was presented I believe is accurate where where the misunderstanding that Mr.
reporter just alluded to was staff's narrative right up is is is unclear. Um because uh David Broes is suggesting one thing and the scope as it's written is appears
to be different and I reason I say that is because I had what is it seven roofers that all bid on it the same exact way and generally got very similar prices. So there is very clearly defined a clear scope. Is it what we want? I
believe it is. How we how staff has managed to narrate what that is to you may not be very clear. And if if and there there's where I contend that the the the bid the package that's in front of you is good and accurate. And I think
we just need to give a do a better job. We're gonna get with the architect after this because Russ is not on the call. He is available for a phone call. Uh we're we're gonna take care of this after this with the architect and give a written a better written explanation so
that we do have clarity on it that it is what was bid on is understood. Yeah, I'm looking at the contract for the scope here. say fluid applied roof coating system, but that's just part of the bid should
be based upon. Um, I can look at it's not you want to get Russ on. It's not even saying it's Russ on the call or I mean looking at item page four 178 I
don't know if this was a question to then in question two say take it down to the deck and it refers to that um spec A as the roof remaining in place. If you go to page four of 178,
what and M. Yeah, we were looking at page eight. Yeah, that scope that helps us out at all on this or confuses more. I'm not reading where it says peel off anything down to the deck.
Just talking about a fluid applied roof. Yeah. Shingle. Yeah. Modified. Are you looking at the drawings or I'm looking at page eight of the of the contract that that talks about the scope.
No, but sometimes that's what they bid on, right? No, they bid on the spec on the drawings and the specifications that are in the drawings. Do you want Yeah, rough on. Can you put it here? Um for the court members that um online,
we're going to we're trying to get a hold of the architect right now. he's available to talk and um hang on we're going to put him on the spot basically if it's okay with you all. Sure. Waiting for that. Holly, where does it provide that the page eight item
is not um the what they're bidding on, but the specs have higher priority. We have what's considered and I I don't have the contract up in front of me. I apologize, but we have a definition in
the contract of contract documents. So, it it doesn't give a priority. It says all of these things together constitute the the contract documents. And so and again I don't you know I don't know whether or not there is some type of
conflict between what's written but we provide that the contract documents consist of the contract the bid documents specs plans. Okay.
Go ahead Barbara Russ. Hi this is Barbara Myers construction purchasing. Uh we're in the cork meeting right now. We have you on speaker and we have a question regarding um the this is South Grades
Southgrade uh roofing project. There's some discrepancy with or question rather regarding the fluid applied roofing. I know you talked to David Bropes yesterday. Um could you explain if a little bit more about what's in the
drawings and specifications for this? Yes. First off, good morning everybody. Certainly can. I have four buildings out there. Buildings one, two, and three are um existing roofing with a fluid applied alpha guard bio going down over the
existing roofing building. The fourth building is the covered PE building which is asphalt shingles which are being taken down to the existing um wood deck and a new asphalt shingle roof system put down on the pavilion
on buildings. You you make reference to the fluid applied uh roof coating system. Um I guess somewhere in here we've um somehow narrated that the uh decking is being peeled off.
Um, this is David Porter. I'm the chair of Cork. And the confusion is st the staff write up was saying that the modifi the flat deck was being taken down to the deck, roofing stripped to the deck and then a new modified roof put on top and then a coating over top
of that. So it sounds like you're saying that's existing and we just need to put a fluid applied coating over the existing modified. I got you 100%. Um, now I see where it's it's not really confusion. On every
project we do, we do a moisture um testing um before we set out and do the drawing. So, we've identified two areas where there's excessive moisture when it's over a certain amount, as you probably know, you'd have to take up that portion of the roof. Otherwise, we do spot repairs. So, in two areas there,
the moisture is high enough where and the roof was contained. They're smaller areas um where we're just taking up the roof. So, what we have to do first is put down a new buildup in that on that deck and then come back with the coating. That way, we have the same roof throughout. If we had otherwise I'd have
two different like um warranties to deal with, right? No, understood now. So, you got a patch job and then your coating to make it uniform with the other existing fluid applied. Right. Yeah. Now I get what the whole question was about because it's between myself and David and Patrick the SPA was we
didn't 100% understand the question so we tried to attack it from all different angles but now I see your angle 100% and the areas are very well identified in the drawings and again there are small areas of roof deck so yes exactly okay that clarified it thank you glad to be able to help you're welcome
thank you okay for the rest of the Mr. Porter, would you care to elaborate for everybody else? So, it's been simplified. We got some areas of the existing flat deck that have moisture damage that have to be taken all the way down to the structural deck. Those patch areas are identified
on the architect's drawings. They're going to be cut out. New modified bitchmen roofing with insulation put in those areas. And then because the other area of existing roofing has the fluid applied coating or will get the fluid applied coating, it's now going to go
over top of existing roofing that is still in good enough shape and the new patch areas. And that was on the drawings, which is what got I'm okay with this one now. And I'm looking at the drawings now. And so the large majority of the roof areas
are just the fluid and there are small sections that are designated, right? And there's no fluid applied up there now. We're fluid applying over top of the existing to extend its life and then over top of the new patch areas.
Fine. So the communication breakdown was between myself and Russ yesterday because my understanding was what I stated to you and the response was being done. But well before that even the original writeup was finished. Yes, the original write up was
confusing and that prompted my question which then you got answers back to me which was which was only part partially true. Okay, confusion's resolved. I don't have any issues with this. Can I have a motion to go forward? I'll move to go forward now that it's clarified.
Okay. Got Jim Al and Virginia for the motions. Any other comments? All right. Polish staff, please. Porter. Yes. France Makaboo. Yes. Jamal. Yes. John Chesher. Yes. Kevin Wilkinson. Yes.
Lisa Raves. Must be away. There's Lisa. Mr. Ravvice. Lisa Revis, it's a yes. Michael Gelfan, yes. Michael Guida, yes. Virginia Parish, yes. Tom Ber's back.
And Burger's back. Okay. I can't vote on that because I did not hear at all. Oh, okay. Fine. That's fine. Thank you, sir. Barbara, do we have answers back on what was it? PC1, DC2. Yes, I do. I have an email from Ajax that says Stokum LLC is the majority
owner. The response is on the wrong line. Ajax does not have any bankruptcies. I can include this document followup if you would like or Michael. Did you get that? Yeah. I'll make a motion to pro to uh with with no objection to proceed
uh uh PC2 subject to the uh bidder amending his uh package to correct the bankruptcy error. Okay. Then I'll just be submitting a
replacement form, I guess. Yes. Yes. Is this PC2? Yes, it is. All right. I'll second. I think it's PC1. PC1. PC1. Yes. Sorry. PC1. Yes. PC1. Yes. All right.
Okay. We got a first and a second. Any other comments? Right. Staff pull us, please. Porter. Yes. Makabu. Yes. Jald. Yes. John Chesher. Yes. Kevin Wilkinson. Yes. Lisa Ravis. Yes.
Michael Galpan. Yes. Michael Guida. Yes. Tom Burgger. Yes. Virginia Parish. Yes. Okay. Um might I suggest that we go with
policies now instead of your updates? Your your choice. I was going to ask you. We can gladly push off our our updates. Great. Let's go to um that's your chair's board. We're going to go to item five. Anyone have an objection to get down to item five on the agenda? Mr. Gelfan had his hand raised.
I don't have an objection. I was just going to um ask Miss Han if she would take a look at the contract document provisions in light of the last discussion and consult with the contract or she's a contract expert as to whether
there should be a priority or super uh uh superiority provision as to interpretation of documents do a deep dive into that issue now but just for a look see and see if that's appropriate. Okay.
And and Mr. Deland, I appreciate your comments because I did look at it. So I do think there are some clarifications that we can we can add. Yeah, because I was looking at uh I think it's article 1.1 in this one. It was on page 48.
So just a just a thought. Thank you. Thank Thank you, sir. Typically, it's drawings and specs that will override everything and usually larger details override smaller details. That's in a standard AIA contract talks about that. Okay. Thank you. And that should probably override
anything that goes out kind of document. Talk to the uh construction litigators that note that if I could volunteer Bruce and Kevin on this one. Yes, I I certainly shall tap those those
minds. And Tom, also uh Tom Burgerer, so that we know who he is. He's hiding behind. That's all that's all greets to me. Okay. Uh staff, take it away. Whatever you want to do here. Okay. Um
you want to start with the uh summary of what we did, what we sent them. Uh well, that's the thing. I'm I'm just going to briefly touch uh uh Hi everybody. This is Dave Dolan. I I I um want to lead off the discussion. I I
understand you've all been sent the revised documents um as as presented. Um and I just want and I'm going to turn this all over to Michael because he's going to do most of the discussion. Um but uh just as a
reminder uh for those who are unfamiliar the five policies that are uh up for discussion right now three of them were previously brought to this committee sorry Mr. treasure many years ago.
And um two of them, two of the five have not changed since all those years ago. And uh one is a repeal and that is for the HVAC and the second one is for the retainage which was changed back then
because the state statute kept changing the retainage requirements and we said the heck with that. we're just going to make the retainage about uh whatever compliant with whatever state statute is. Those are the two simple ones. Subsequent to that, I'm now going to
turn this over to U. Michael to start walking through I guess I don't know a history a timeline of what we have for the other three um policies which you you'll see before you is change orders contingency use and ultimately the cork
um the policy identifying cork and their obligations. Uh Mr. Gelfin before I go I you have your hand raised. Yes. Um before we get into the detail, what is the end goal for Cork on this?
What are we being asked to do um at the end of the day? Thank you very much. That's uh the the point is um Michael's going to kind of go through a lot of that stuff given but ultimately what we've done in the past is um court will ultimately weigh in
provide your comments your feedback um and the premise is that we will continue to go beyond here um to other organiza other groups and then um it will go before these policies
will go before the school board in three items. Uh the first one would be a workshop that would be in November. Uh then their first reading, policy reading would be in December and the second reading I believe in Jan.
Yeah, in January. But I do think there's also um the purpose of today's meeting is to get Cork's feedback on this and then this will actually go back to the superintendent and leadership and that'll occur so that they'll the
superintendent and leadership will hear Cork's comments and then it'll go to a workshop on November 5th and that's going to be you know open to the public. Um, and that'll be the school board's first time to really kind of hear the changes and why they're being proposed.
And then it'll, like Mr. Dolan said, then we're looking at December for what's called a first read. And then, um, and then the adoption will be, I believe, at the end of January. So, essentially, you're making recommendations um, just like the other agenda items that we've discussed. Your
recommendations are yes, they're good. No, we would prefer if you did this, that, and the other thing. those kinds of uh we expect your feedback to be taken in and um and worked worked on. Uh so we can go
bring these forward. Um but so if that's okay at this time I'm going to turn it over to I was just also say I also appreciate uh um these adding the line numbering and as we move through going to specific text if we can refer to the line
numbering so that we're literally on the same page in line. Thank you. Okay. All right. At this point, I'm going to turn it over to Michael to kind of walk through the timeline and and the uh Yeah, it we touched on some of it, the general timeline of how we're going
forward. Um but I just want to touch on kind of where we've been and and how we got here. So, you know, a couple years ago, um our contracts policies looking to make make sure we streamline all of our processes, make sure they all um align
with each other, and we're doing the best service we can for the public money here. Um so, we started to implement a lot of uh procedural changes. Um we've improved our quality control on our pay apps significantly.
um as well as uh reducing some of the um information that's needed to provide at the same time. So, it's kind of a double-edged sword there. But, you know, as we go through this, we want to make sure that we have a a fast process, but a very thorough process. And that's a a line that we're trying to balance through all of these. Um so, we've
proposed uh we worked with Holly and her staff and Barbara and proposed some contract revisions. Um and as we started to go through that we were proposing to make some relatively minor um policy changes. Um we actually hired a
independent company to also review our policies and procedures at that time and got their input and we're prepared to go forward with that. Um at the same time the industry um was lobbying the state because it's more of a statewide issue and even a nationalwide issue um to
change some of the laws um and they uh passed the law that all change orders need to be approved in 35 calendar days. So we had to pivot at that point and go back and revisit all of our policies again at that point. And that's what you're seeing today is those changes
that incorporate that statute which is the main driving factor. Like I said, we were going to do some minor revisions but nothing along these lines. Um so having said that um we we you know we we want to look at all
three policies holistically but they all relate to each other and support each other. And we've gotten a lot of input from leadership. Um we've got from diff a dozen different departments around the district. And I wanted to say that, you know, none of these policies are
perfect. Um we we fully expect that we may have to bring these back. Um they don't resolve 100% of the issues, but we're trying to get most of the issues that we can resolve with these policies. um we we have a lot of different feedback and uh you know every every
comment that we get affects multiple other areas of the policy. So it's not real straightforward. So I look forward to getting the comments um from Cork and seeing what we can incorporate to those. Um like like Dave and Holly said from this Cork meeting, we'll go back to uh
actually the audit review committee. They're going to do the same exact thing that Cork is doing now. They're going to provide comments. We're going to summarize those comments, take those to leadership. They're going to make some decisions on how they want to go forward with the policies. Um, and then we will bring back next month any of those
updates that um they make so that you're aware of what they recommend as well. So, we will definitely keep you in the loop all the way through um the process. So with that um I don't know David if you wanted I I think now that the members have
heard you know 35day uh change order maximum approval. Yes. That obviously changes the process for the board as well as for cork. So I think it would be helpful before you get into the actual line item discussion of the
policies of how you're kind of envisioning globally or will change and how the board even has to change in terms of stuff that they're willing to accept by just being staff reviews. So we we looked at that and that's in
the summary if you want that but basically um we started out well how can we change our internal processes to meet that 30 day 35day review process and still go through fork and still go to the board. Um we looked at you know four or five different options to do that and
just from a timing spec perspective it doesn't work. Um there was one um stretch last year that the board didn't meet for 45 days in between two meetings right there that that disqualified you. just that one thing we may be able to hurt a lot. So we looked at even options. Well, what if the board met
every two weeks and and what what if we did that? What if we curtailed our process? Um what would that look like? What if we curtailed the court and board process? What would that look? And we could not find a process that actually works very well without the commitment of the board meeting every two weeks without fail over the summer, over the
holidays. And even then there were some gaps of the timeline because when we say when we look at the timeline we're looking at a a date that we submit the change order from when it needs to be approved. But if you miss that window by one day then you have to wait till the next meeting. So we have to have that buffer based on the time and we have
charts to show all this and flowcharts. Um, but we looked at all those different options and what we came to was that basically we have to have more of the items being delegated authority, meaning FC1 items and not standalone items to the board. Um, now one thing that we did
was we know that we're still going to have items over the thresholds that we can assign for delegated authority. Those we would bring as a pre-approval um to Cork and the board. Um, and we we've tracked the change orders from last year. So, we don't know obviously what we're going to run into going
forward. We have some numbers if we want to get into about exactly how many we approved last year, how many would go through delegated authority now under the new system and how many would be um require that pre-approval. So, we have all the numbers to back it up. We want to dig into that, but I don't know if
you want to get start there or start with the policies themselves. The 35 days starts from the day the contractor delivers the change order to you. Correct. And we have to give them the way the the um law reads. We have to either approve it, reject it, or give them
specific direction on how to rectify it. So we can't just send it back and say this isn't right. We have to say you have to fix XYZ and then when it comes back we have another 35 to do this. We have to give them specific direction on how to rectify it to move forward. So this dramatically affects even the board
because if uh if the board you know doesn't meet for 36 days that all those change orders immediately get approved. Yes. It's not even that. Um if the board meets further than 14 days apart even if we eliminated all of our internal
reviews and just gave it over to the normal board process. the normal board process when it goes through creating a board doc it it going through uh leadership review and then going to uh cork and then to the board is already a 19 to 25 day process. So even with that
uh process in place us doing no review at all you still exceed 35 days even with the board meeting every 14 days in certain cases there's four or five days every every month that you're going to miss it. So the the board would have to meet even more regularly than 14 days to
make the process work enough because of just the our current process going through board approval and through cork and everything is too lengthy to meet. We have to have everything under including board under 21 days and they'd have to meet 14 days regularly to even make that possible for the 35 days.
Right. So the way things have worked now change orders would just automatically be approved to meet the statute without even the board having a say. Correct. or you or or even in some cases it wouldn't even make it to court in time for you guys to review it but before it would already be approved by
um by law. Who's got a hand up? Uh Michael. Um is this on our list for legislative issues for the 2026 session? It certainly is. Um I think Mr. Sanchez
is on and I think he plays No, it's not. It's not on the priorities for to change the language back. No, it's not. Is that what you're asking? Yes. Um, it's not on the list changes.
Is there a reason why not? Because this is this is this is not practical. It's not ready to be a build able to be implemented. No, I mean generally we want to pay our contractors faster, right? We want to get we want to get the project done
faster. We want to get them paid faster. So we don't the board has not contemplated making this a priority to change this to back to where it was before. So we we need to figure out how to how to work with it um as it is and there probably there may be some rules
that come down to further explain how generally after laws are passed um the departments that responsible for implementation will come back with some rules further elaborating on how the rule how the law is. But um at this point just just short
answer to your question is that no there's no there's no plan to ask the legislature to modify the law. Um all right just uh just so everyone knows it was Senator Don Gates who introduced this bill in the legislature
continue and I was going to say that's as Mr. Sanchez said I I think where we're going is um we we aren't passing judgment. we are from a staff level, our our focus is how do we get there? And um
I I think u Michael and Jud can kind of speak more to the process because uh again kind of reiterating the whole point of um staff needs time to review these if there are going to be efforts
um I think you're going to touch on CRI um an outside audit firm to help us do things so that we can go through faster our process. But we do need staff does need to look at it in
some manner um with estimating with um you know evaluating the the the uh veracity of any change order. So we do need that whether or not it goes to court or to the board we still need to do that and still maintain the 35 days.
So I think one of the items you wanted to um mention right is the use of um an outside auditor. Yeah. So some of the you know it's all all related to try to process our our caps faster right so um one of the items that we looked at to do that initially
on and we've stayed with this is that you know for instance our general requirements where we have to check receipts for each um widget that the contractor buys and verify it along the process. So, um, as part of the summary, we we're proposing to transfer that to a lump sum, not to exceed where we would
do a just a we would pay that amount that they're recommending and then an audit company would come back after the fact and review all those receipts to verify um if they're compliant with that. So, that's I know that sometimes we looked at um burning that just to a
um a standard uh lump sum, but we it's public money, so we didn't feel comfortable with doing that. um we wanted to make sure that we're only paying for what was used. So that was kind of a compromise that we worked out to for that particular item. Um all this is an effort to like Mr. Sanchez says to
pay our contractors faster for the work that they've done and be good partners but at the same time having that high quality uh level of assurance that the money where it needs to be spent. um the policies that I don't know if we want to jump one by one, go through the change
order policy or how do we want to the summary. Virginia, uh yeah, before we do that line by line, I'm still looking at this process. The law became uh effective July 1 of this year, we've just we've just sent some
contracts up for approval and we've done that at other meetings. So, those are already under this timeline. How are they being handled? We're at We're at risk right now. Um if a if a change order was sent in over our
current delegated authority, um we would be able to review it, comment back, and but we are at risk right now for those contracts. So, it's not all of our contracts. Our continuing services contracts um don't fall under that because it's the original date. But all of these roofing projects that we have
about 10 or so over the last few months have gone out would fall under that. All right. And and so are we going to be seeing the change orders even though they've been approved? Will we ever see them?
Yeah. All of them will be reported back through Cork. Um there there's two different ways you'll see it. Either a pre-approval, meaning uh we haven't made this change yet. You'll you'll get a chance to comment on whether we should go forward with that. um that will be we won't have all the details yet, but we'll give you a summary of why we have
a change for anything over a certain dollar value and then anything under the delegate authority will come through just like you see now with the FC1 items. Um we'll have a list of of approved items that you'll be able to comment on, but similar to the FC1 now that that's after the fact. So, we can
definitely take input on um you know, trends and things like that with the FC1 items, but even the current authority of court can't reject an FC1 item. They can just make make recommendations going forward. Even the board can't reject it. Um they can they can
already approved. Yeah, it's approved. Michael, um Holly, I don't know if you want to if you have an ability to take another look at the statute. believe it may only apply to new contracts January July one post. So what we're seeing now
we this would not apply to I may have that transition wrong in there but that's a fact. So right so the the roofing contracts that we've approved after July 1st would apply and then we're getting ready to go
back out for our Seymar contract for all of our continuing services. When we do that, those would apply any of our standalone RFPs, it would apply to. So, right. And Mr. Gelfand, it applies to construction services, which has a a pretty broad definition. So, there's
there's more almost everything that facilities does and even to some degree uh work that maintenance and plant operations would do would come under this uh this new time frame. But you're right for new contracts.
For new contracts after July 1, right, Kevin Wilkinson? Yes. I um if you um come up with some kind of accounting materiality concept like we'll treat change orders less than 10,000 one way and we'll treat them differently under this these
requirements in terms of whether the board has to have an emergency meeting or something similar to that. I would also think that you might consider when a change order asks for additional time because a lot of these change orders, they seem innocuous. It could be for $10,000, but they're asking for
twothirds of a year additional time under the contract. So, I think time should be an element along with money if you go that route and do a two-tier review. Smaller items get preapproved by district, but you handle bigger items
differently. just handle the time part as well. And it is so we have delegated authority limits for both time and money um in the proposals. So we are looking at those and then from an emergency standpoint there's provisions that we've modified in there to there was already some
provisions for emergency cases. So but we modified that to be um a little bit more user friendly as far as what needs to be provided. Um let me explain a little further. So we had provisions for an emergency change order. Well, in order to have a change order, you have
to have all the backup and information provided, sub bids, competitive bidding, labor, all that kind of stuff to approve a change order. In an emergency, you don't have time to do that. So, we changed the language to be an emergency construction change directive. So, we
will have a ROM rough order of magnitude price with a scope of work that would be be able to approve by delegate authority by the superintendent, not the board for any item based if it's a true emergency. We don't run into those very often, but we do run into those. Um, and and we did
we did clarify for those roofing projects that we have now. If we happen to open up the roof and um, for instance, all the insulation was bad and the deck was rotted out and for some reason we didn't catch it in design and we have a big change or that would be able to be approved during an e
situation by the superintendent because it would have a um, it would ruin our property. Basically, I'm using not the terms of the contract, but there's emergency purposes in there for those cases outside of delegated authority. What about um contractor submits a
change order to you today and it's halfbaked and it doesn't have all the information. Do you have to accept it or do you automatically reject it until it's complete? We reject it, but we have to give them specifically what they need to provide in order to meet that. There may already be a checklist in the contractor just
rushed it in here and didn't complete the checklist. Then we reject it and say complete items XYZ, send it back to them and then when they submit those, we still will be able to review those XY and Z. We have a new 35day window to do that. Okay. But we can't just reject it without
cause, right? We have to give them specific information. Yes. Is there a deadline for accepting a change order? 35 days. like what's the process if you you review it? There's a review process to
just accept it. Why? Um I believe that it's necessary like Mr. Sanchez said to streamline our process as much as possible to abide by the spirit of the law and everything, but there's a certain aspect of acceptance of a change order for review.
Yeah, I can see I can see, you know, you accept it today, it gets delivered to you today, and it takes you a week to go through to figure out that they're missing stuff. I mean, and you reject it at that point, and the 35day clock starts over. Yes. Okay. And it doesn't it doesn't start over
actually until they resubmit it to Right. Exactly. Okay. Yeah. But Yes. Um, so if we get really bad change orders, they may go back and forth several times, and we we're not really committed until we get a a good package that says everything. The law says it has to be in like a
complete approvable Yes. Uh um form, but still, even in a complete approvable form, even if we've reviewed it a few times, it still has to go through the rest of the process. And and I have a flowchart of our current process that goes to the board. And currently um once an item gets submitted
to the to the project manager, the SPA who's managing, you know, as the district side, it takes about 60 to 70 days to get through every single step of review, including all the agenda items and the and leadership and board and cork and everything else to then get
back in return. So right now the current process is is way out of you know even you get a perfect one in it's going to take 2 months to potentially three if the board meeting is further out uh from when it gets submitted. So it's a 70-day process right now. Um so that's why we
we have to look at extreme changes to to try and meet this because even a perfect change order would take 70 days to go all the way through the board. How do you um just for pose the question so that you all get that what if a change order comes in and we think the price is too high? We've
evaluated and so it's too high. How do you respond to the contractor and you know can you reject a change order or yeah we can we can respond back that we feel that the price is too high depending on how they have supporting documents but in the end it's going to come down to whether we want to do that
work or not. And we also have the option to um reject it and not go forward with that work. I mean that's that is an option for all these change orders. But do you have the option to say no, your prices are skyhigh, we're rejecting this change order for this reason. Go back and sharpen your pencil. We do have that option.
Does that start the 35day clock over again? Yes, we do have some other mechanisms as well. We can issue a construction change directive that says go do this work and then we're going to argue about the price later. Um, so it seems like the spirit of the the law is more on along the lines of if you get a price that's
too high, you can go back to them and say, "We're going to change the scope of work that you're going to submit a change order and maybe reduce it because we don't have that we don't have enough money to do this." But if you're asking them just to go back with the same scope of work and you haven't given them uh clear directions on how to rectify, not
just we don't like your pricing, um, then I think you're in violation of the law and they could argue that it should be approved automatically. So, I think that if you're going back with a um with a response of we don't like this pricing, then you you the direction needs to be we come back with modified
scope to make our pricing more aligned. But that's crazy. I would I would say I think the statute because it's the statute the words are the denial notice must specify the alleged deficiencies in the price quote. So, I do think that the district would have
the ability to come back and say, "You need to clarify the price on this. How did how many bids did you get? What materials are you using? Where are you getting them from?" So, I do think that the district still retains the the ability to ask clarification based just
on price. And we do that now. We are fair and reasonable process. That's how we do Well, I know, but I was trying to have the 35day clock start over again because that is a valid reason to kick it back that it not basically nonresponsive. Uh, Michael Gelfan, then we'll get to Kevin.
With all of these questions on the statute, it's a relatively short one, and I'm not asking everyone to do a a statutory analysis, but it might be helpful for the group to see how this is written and how broad it is. Um, and if
you want, I can share my screen and show it. I've got it here. Or if you want to, if you're able to access it quickly and pop it up. Yeah. You know, I was somewhat incredulous on this, though. I've seen things come out of the legislature in the past. Um, but
you know, uh, you see it and you start to believe it. So, if you want to allow me to share my screen. No, it's okay. I I've got it here. I've um I've looked it up many times before. Yeah.
There a question about it or I don't know. So, this is the actual statute language. Um and the actual if you uh let me see if I can zoom in a little for you here because it's a little bit Michael. And I don't know if I want to have us get into the weeds too much on this rather than going through the
policies that have been recrafted that are going to go forward. I I agree with you and that's why I said at the beginning I don't want to start engaging in or invite a statuto analysis. I'm just because of all the questions and the sounds of incredul folks around the
table myself internally when I first saw and when I first heard this that's why I pulled it up and if you read it you see how broad it is and how little flexibility there is. There's no flexibility really, right,
for a district and and we will be the guinea pigs because nobody else is doing this yet. No other district has attempted to do what we're doing. So, there's going to be a lot for within the next year. There's probably going to be a lot of FAQs out there about, okay, how do you
handle this and how do you handle that? Kevin Wilkinson. Kevin, you're up. Kevin, you're muted if you're trying to I know I had to find my mouse. Sorry. Uh when we were discussing this, one of the issues is there's a possible fall back
that if you blow the deadline and you don't achieve 35 days and it means the change order is approved that this could be picked up in a post construction pro project audit or something as as the real question like to Mr. Sanchez, do do
we actually do that? And uh I is it how many projects are there that we actually audit afterwards? In in accounting terms, is it a good practice to audit one out of every 500 just to make sure that everybody knows that they got to keep their paperwork
in place? Well, go ahead, Mr. Sanchez. Well, if you want, I can start fielding that a little bit. Go ahead. Go ahead. Um we uh the the um the uh the IG certainly does evaluate
our uh construction contracts and they in fact do post audits on um on a number of ours and as you said it's it's far it's probably far closer than one in
500. Um so from a historical standpoint we are in fact doing having an audit done by our IG's office on u on construction contract state too as well. Oh that's true and the state comes in
every um I think if Miss Evans is on it's like every three years and they do uh pick out a couple of projects each uh each time to evaluate. Um but that being said again I want to go to the the post
audit concept. I I and forgive me maybe I'm not answering the question but I we're we are suggesting that we are going to employ a post construction audit. Um and Michael I don't know if you want to talk more about that.
Yeah it's it' be a financial analysis of the project. Um and it um we don't know the exact scope of what that's going to cover. Um we have some recommendations but we would work with the the different companies to develop um well we would develop the scope and then go out and
get um input and have those audits. We just don't know the exact extent of that right now. And for for us, it makes a lot of sense to be able to audit a lot of the things that we normally require contractors to
take a ton of time for them to get all the backup and the whole rigomearole. Um, which slows down the process. And it may not even be process inside the school district. It may be the process leading up to a contractor being able to make a
pay application all the while waiting for some extraneous pieces. We can audit those those components later on through um post post construction audit. Virginia, thank you. Um if you would go back to
the statute language, I have a question on that. The very last sentence, a contract between the government and the contractor may not alter the local governmental entity's duties.
With an attorney, please tell me what that means. Can can there be language put into a contract that preserves the local government's duties? No. Well, the statute requires it. So, we certainly could reiterate this document,
but essentially what it says is that we can't put anything in our contract that says the the the contractor is going to wave that 35 days that they're going to agree to 45 days, 60 days. We can't do that. And that's again one of the other
constraints that facilities has to deal with is that even contractually I can't help them out that way. they there's just that 35day deadline is that 35day deadline. So really it's that opportunity um as been we've talked
about if we have a discrepancy if we want clarification then we would have to notify the CM 35 before day 35 and say we have you need to provide us clarification on this and as a result we
can't approve the change order and stop the clock so that they have to the balls back in their court. That's a good question miss that was you know we did try I I don't want to say we're trying to work around the system, but we did certainly look at other alternatives. Can we do that kind of
thing? It was one of my first questions was, well, can't we just ask the contractors, hey, if you like working for us, can we update the contract and just have you agree to make it 45 days or 60 days? And that last sentence does essentially eliminate that ability to do that. Yep.
Is there is there the ability to put into the contract that change orders will come on a certain day of the month only or something like that to fit in this? I asked that question. We feel that that last sentence prohibits that in our opinion.
Kevin, are you muted? Kevin Wilson. Yes. I'm sorry. Um just one last thing. when you you you told the the mechanisms under which there's post construction audits and is there any outsourcing cost
to those and a lot of times if we're talking about a $35,000 change order, could the audit cost $100,000? Is it is it a real remedy in in in the real world? That's why we're going to review that scope carefully and see what's worth auditing, what's not worth auditing.
Yeah, we've gotten some feedback from other districts. I know that u my own personal experience um I'm close with the uh the chief of facilities in Orange County and they use an outside auditing firm and they have recovered quite a bit of money
from the contractors and essentially what um Orange County has said is that the money that they recover from the contractors um through the that process uh pays for those services. Um that
sounds great. Um, and I say that yay, uh, we get money back until the third or fourth time when the contractors realize that we are going to audit them each and every time and they do a much better job. And then how are we, you know, we still have to pay for that audit uh,
value you talked about, but we may not be recovering quite as much because the contractors will then know, make sure they have all their tees crossed and eyes dotted when they submit, which is a good thing. Let's face it, I'm I'm sitting here with a bunch of contractors in the room saying, "Yeah, do better. Do
better so we don't have to worry about an audit, but we may have to pay for it out of out of uh out of our funds." Yes, Michael Gelfin. Yeah, I I'm just wary of after the fact on these items and subjecting our
vendors to that type of question. I know auditing is appropriate, but it does have some u problems. One thing to consider um is whether when we do get a change order that comes in at an untimely moment is to ask the contractor
to withdraw it and resubmit. Uh I would imagine that most contractors would want to work with us voluntarily. Um but that's just something you might be able to try on a limited basis and see how that works. Well, again, that's I we can appreciate
that. I I uh I think that that's kind of disingenuous. Disinguous. Yeah. It's going to go against the intents of the the law. And I I realize we're trying to work the system as best we can, but we got to do so within the bounds of like I don't
want to come upon that at that last sentence of the the policy of the statute. This becoming a an item by asking them to do something different, does that make us in violation of that statute? And I'm going to add in here.
So if this is a 28 day difference between a board meeting and a board meeting, then any of these days that are submitted in red would fail to meet the board within 35 days. So that ends up being about 15 days a month that you cannot make the 35 days even if we had
no review and just kicked it straight over to the board to do all the review themselves and Cork. So this would be to keep cork intact, but us do nothing. Basically, we receive it, we send it right to you, say go for it. uh even then there's half the month that doesn't achieve 35 days every month. So there is
no there's no option to say oh don't submit it the first two weeks of the month only the second two weeks that that's a disingenuous route and and we're not we're not looking at that. I I I what I don't want to find is that we put ourselves in a position where be
I I don't want to say our district is challenged but but that we don't we're already going out in front of everybody else. Uh we're the first to our knowledge we are the first district in the state that is or school district in the state I've heard of one other entity
that has tried to address this. Um but we're the first school district to my knowledge that is abs that's actually going forward with this and we have to do so because as as Miss Ferris pointed out the the roof contracts were potentially at risk. um we we don't want
to put call any undue attention to our district for uh you know being I don't want to say nefarious but coming up with ways around it. Um we will already have a microscope on us because we will be
early in the process and I want to put us in a good light and show that we've actually tried to comply that we get everything that the statute is demanding. We're doing everything we can to work around that. Hold on, hold on a second, everyone.
Talking about 35, we have 35 minutes left to extend the meeting. Um, I think we now know that the statute's here and what's going to have to change. And so, I would like us to go through the policies or we won't get through the policies, but have to have our input
today. It's it it's moving forward. Miss Rabbit had her hand, but I don't see her up there. Did she? Okay. She must have taken it down. I think she withdrew her name. Okay. Would you like me just to quickly go over the summary of the changes we've made and then we can go to the policies
themselves if you need to. Jump right to the policies. I think policies. Which one would you like to start with? Why don't you pick one? There are no short numerical order numerical order. That's starting I think
with 1093 or the way it is court policy. Here's 1093. just well we've all read these have specific questions or comments or changes. Yeah, I have a question on line 96
that's not anything we wanted to do it. It talks about um a report to Cork at the project closeout. What is project closeout?
Still familiar with that. So yeah, those FC items that we bring forward where there the actual close out to the board um where we list out all the return of contingencies the that's a close out of a construction contract. This is going to have this talks about design contingency use as
well. Yes. I've never seen that. You guys have never done anything like that for us. Are we had to clarify the contingency policy was written as just contingency. So we made an effort to clarify design contingency versus construction versus all the different types and the
definitions. So the design contingency we have an allowance within our design contracts um that doesn't increase the PO that would be reported to cork as well. Um if it increases the PO then that's treated like a change order change order. So so that would be reported at the same
time now that you're bringing us the contract closeouts. Yes. Okay. Fine. And that what we were proposing is a log of all of the contingencies so you have a full picture as we go. So very good. Let's see. Virginia.
Um I have a few questions but I'll I'll I'll jump to this one because he already brought it up. It just mentions that we will see them. It doesn't state whether we can comment on them. Then what happens with our comments?
You can certainly absolutely always comment. Um we're there's a difference between a comment and approval. Um right, but that you're welcome to comment on anything. I think our our role on the contingency part of that we really see cork as a looking at the trend that some of the comments today
were were along those lines. You know, we're noticing a lot of these change orders. What are you going to do about this? Look at how we're operating from a holistic level rather than a penny on a individual item. So those trends you can absolutely comment on and provide feedback and going forward we'll improve
our processes look at doing things different how we can accommodate those recommendations on it. That's the thing I I still want to make sure that it's understood quirks input to us like the things we talked about today. You know those are valuable to us
and I think we need to see those those comments coming back because sometimes I'll be the first to admit we we we can't see the forest for the trees. we're so focused in the weeds and we don't see the trends that you all see on a monthly basis and you help us um see
those better. So we do want to continue that and that's why I think um gaining still gaining a lot of your insights based on the items that you see. My question is should should both the change order and uh contingency mention
that not only these reports will be entered but the core comments will be entered into the records of court. We do that covered up at the public where is it covered on the reporting
reporting to the board. we when we um so Cork's comments are always captured in the meeting minutes and board report for every so that'll continue under change orders and contingencies. Absolutely. Yes. And none of that none of that reporting
will change. Michael on the same one. Um, I agree with Virginia in raising this, but the way that this is framed is that this is just information to us. It does not invite us
to comment and particularly as this is a narrower scope than any other general provision. I would suggest that this both both provisions both at um lines 9697 and the prior page at 90 and 91 to
ensure that KO is informed of etc etc. And at the end of that sentence and has an opportunity to make recommendations to the board. Um yes the yes it is. It says here your purpose is to uh review and comment and
make recommendations concerning this is line three uh in two through four it says uh purpose the construction oversight review committee exists to assist the school board by oversight and review of and making recommendations concerning the work of responsible
departments to build quality schools and time and budget. So that applies to everything. So we don't need to add language that's already in the document. I appreciate that. And as someone who drafts procedures, policies, covenants, regulations,
um the way that this reads is that we are to be informed. That is the purpose of this to ensure informed is not the purpose to provide excuse me for a court to provide comment and that needs to be
added to this. Okay. I think that's where we were kind of suggesting that the the report itself is there to inform you. You are to be informed. Of course, as line three would suggest, virtually
anything we provide you, you are entitled to comment and recommend everything on that list. Yeah. But but you have you have stated that they're going to be entered into the official records. So, I agree with
Michael. I think you need to also state our comments are entered into the official records. Okay, that's you want our feedback there. There's some feedback. And Mr. Can I and I have some other questions if
if no one else has anything on this these sections? I do on this one again. Hold on. Hold on. John Chester, this is just a report of all the change orders and contingency uses that we've already reviewed every month. Correct.
No reviewing the construction uh change orders and contingency use after the fact. So construction change orders will be bringing every month. Sure. The contingencies we're proposing bring at the end of the project, not every month. Oh, I didn't understand that. Yeah. The contingency is already
approved by the board in the original contract. So the problem is that we have an overload of contingencies in a project, right? So that takes up a lot of staff time preparing those reports to that. It's already been approved by the board. And this was a recommendation by our audit
company and um a lot of other people. So that basically we don't we don't need to overmanage the contingency. I think that's the been the industry standard sometimes to do that where that's already in the GMP. it's already approved. We would make sure it
follows the uh contingency policy that it fits the use and that it's a valid price for that work. And then at the end, we would report all that back as a list for the contingency. Well, that's what you're doing now. Except we're in we're submitting those contingency uses
every month with an error. And we have comments every month on them that no, you're not applying the contingency use policy. Correct. Or no, we don't like the price or we're having legitimate comments and now you're asking us to button up.
Understand? Right. Yeah, that's a no for me. Virginia, you had more comments. If you're finished with this, I I do hope you'll take into account everything
we're saying about this because that's a big part of our work. Uh I want to go back to paragraph three, the responsibilities of our mission. I do understand why you're excluding information concerning safety and security because we don't get to say yay
or nay how you're going to do that. My concern is will we continue to see that these changes? where we continue to see the financial impact that these um safety changes are making on our project so that we can see trends.
Yes, we're going to still report those change orders and contingency allowances to the Duke Cork and the board. All right. Thank you. But this says excluding information concerning safety and security. To me, that would be from their responsibilities of Yes.
of deciding what has to happen. Yeah. Well, somehow we need maybe we can clarify that language because you're going to court is still going to see the financial impact. It was $100,000, but you would just won't see that that $100,000 was to
purchase XYZ cameras and card readers and whatever equipment. Yeah. Because I mean, one of one of our important comments we had before was getting the police department to hire a specialized person that could actually understand a set of drawings. So, wait a minute. You're saying we
won't see what the money was spent for? Just that money. Oh, you were still going to do that? Because I thought that was we had some alternate language before on this that we basically what we said is that only that we wouldn't answer the questions about specific security
related items that would have a negative impact on the security of the the district or the school. That's the way it was originally written. Um, right. But if you came back with a $400,000 change order for security on a school in my mind still come after the fact, we would want to know
that to say, okay, what what are you not doing at the review process that's causing this, right? But if we don't get to see that, we don't have those comments and whatever happens happens. And this language just this language is is not acceptable to me. Yeah, it's
if I may make a suggestion that we exclude information that by law is kept confidential for security reasons that that that handles those issues. And I would also suggest that the safety be
deleted because that's also a critical part of what we're looking at. [Music] I mean, we we should be able to know that there's so many card readers, not where they're located, you know, but the knowledge that you
purchase 10 or 100 is relevant, right? We're taking notes. Yeah. I mean, I think our concern is and I I think Mr. Gelfan offered a very good comment is that we just always want to make sure that whatever information you
have, information you receive at a court meeting which is public, we don't want to we don't want to provide information for security measures that is would otherwise be exempt. So may not be in place like as we're constructing security measures, some of
that may not be in place yet at other schools. We don't want to have those kind of discussions, you know, um What I'm what I'm looking at is for my clients, we have statutory exclusions for security um and um uh say certain um
proprietary information and the law's been pretty well vetted on that. So if we make reference to that, it it probably works. Um if that's been touched, then I also want to discuss the exclusion for safety matters that I think we want to put. I mean regularly
we get we I think we used to get reports on where we had uh you know violations or issues that have come up. So you're suggesting we we delete the word security? No. Safety.
I mean safety. Yes. Okay. Good comment. And if we're finished with that, I do have one other question. Go ahead. All right. It's on how the uh committee u assignments will be handled once this
passes. If we doing away with some of the specifications and coming up with seven community, will they just kind of be parcled out to the board? One one per board member. Yeah, that's what we that's what we
wrote in here. Yeah. And and please forgive me on on this last piece. This really wasn't a this last piece was not a function of any statute change or anything like that. This was actually more in um
the challenge for the board office and um district staff to try to help board members find court members that met the qualifications. I understand that. Yes. I I don't have an issue with that. What my question is
if a board member had two community and not one of the specials, how does that handled or vice versa? A board member had two of the specials but not a community. How did you envision that being changed? right now the all the
members that are here would be able to fit into uh because of course we have more of the specials um than we will we would have in the future um some of the specials would be able to qualify as that board members um um at large member
um we will the current makeup of the uh cork can fit into this new system um somebody who may be a professional professional um architect might be the um an at large for that board member if
necessary um or as a contractor. They might be able to fit in as the at large. I understand all that. I'm just asking at what point you're planning to do this and who is going to be doing these assignments and my and my then the other
question is we'll be losing some specialties because over time some of these people who might be transitioning from say engineer to member at large the next time it will be a member at large like me who has no engineering background. So I'm I'm just concerned
that we're losing subsp specialists. So those are my comments. Some of the special some of the specialists that we eliminated because there are a handful of them that we have eliminated and they had to do with things like um real estate
procurement which are services that we do far less of now. Um, I can understand when this policy was originally enacted, the uh the school district was building what, six, eight schools a year and buying land left and right and whatnot.
Nowadays, those some of those services are not as frequently needed. Um, but where we do load up is is on the professional services, the construction uh uh folks uh the architects and
engineers. Go ahead, Jeb. What are you going to Well, um, you know, we did we did eliminate some of them, but we we anything that we eliminated, we kind of rolled up into another one grouping. So, like there was one for someone a a specialist in the industry, like a
craftsman, which we rolled up into the language here, you know, a construction project manager and a construction superintendent or a construction industry trades person. So, we did we we took the line that just said construction trades person and moved it up into another. So we weren't trying to
eliminate them. We were trying to consolidate some of them to try and make it easier. So in most of these cases, uh the items have been shifted up into a grouping so they could more people could apply to that one that one role. And to answer I think hopefully to
answer your original question, how will this be implemented? Yes, we will work with the uh court chairman when in when this is actually implemented. We will work with the uh cork chairman as well
as the board office and the board members to make sure they understand what their positions are, what uh what members they currently have and what roles they can and will fill in the future. So, we will reallocate with the
board office and sorry I'm putting you on the spot uh the cork chairman so that it's not being done in the blind to cork. court chairman will be able to weigh in on behalf of the oversight, but we will we staff will work with the
board office to asssure that the positions are allocated appropriately and and if and and you'll keep us with our board person if possible. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. If you are with a board member, you will continue to be with a board member. That's my
apologies if I didn't say that well enough earlier. I was trying to say that the current makeup of the cork committee all of you as members will stay with your board members and will fit into these qualifications. We have that already. I wouldn't have done this
without having planned out that everybody can fit in and stay with their expertise under the same board member. All right. So these changes came about from from your position. They did. They did. All right. This was not a function, this piece was not a
function of any statute. This was more to help um the challenge of board members because we do get a lot of questions from board members of what are my roles, what are the open positions, can you help me find somebody, those kind of things. And let me just add a
clarification because this actually was um instigated by Miss Bril having a discussion item I believe two months ago um where she requested that um the the court membership uh be broadened because
of that. So, I would say that really this is being um you know, we're doing this at the request of a board discussion item in which all the board members said they were definitely interested in opening up the categories. Thank Thank you. They're my questions.
Michael Gelfin, then we'll go to Mr. Sanchez on this particular one. Uh, one way of perhaps addressing uh, Virginia's comments is to have just an implementation statement. Uh,
frequently state agencies and legislature and private policies have just an implementation transition statement. something perhaps like you know um to you know current membership shall
keep their same rules unless their appointee changes you know there there's a there are multiple ways of doing it but just suggesting that okay um especially since as I'm looking at this I don't see the item the specialties deleted that we have anyone
or that we've even had anyone for quite some time in those roles um on The line 138 though um is are we just sort of giving up on industrial trades persons? We did have one I think about five or six years ago.
130. It's still up to 129. Michael, it's been re regrouped. Yeah, we moved this from 138. Yeah. To right there. So we we have included them as an option in that in that line. All right. So, and then um with reference to
line 121 in that one um concerning familiar with construction accounting, is that to apply to both the CPA and the accountant or just to the uh cost accountant?
I think the comma comes out after accounting cost accountant. It's any one of those there. It's like or or or Yep. It's certified with accounting or specialist in accounting or I I see that we need to put or familiar with construction accounting or
cost estimator uh sorry construction estimator or construction cost projects. I think we have to do more or into that. Yeah, we should just I'll uh defer to Mr. Sanchez. He looks like he's ready to go there. And I've got some other Holly said what I was
going to say then brought this up so she already covered it. I don't want to. Okay, Michael, you had more. Uh, yes. Going to line 43. Um, is site I did not see site evaluation elsewhere. If it is, just
point me in. And if not, is there a reason why that's off the table as part of the planning process? I don't know. I think that's usually done um off the record um kind of with our planning staff looking at long term.
We don't we're not going to do a ton of that now. Um but they work with different ASJs and um work negotiate deals based on fair market value. And sometimes when you advertise that it changes the approach. Um you can muddy
the waters with negotiations. Um you know, again, this doesn't come up very often, but our we have a a real estate group that handles all of those negotiations. Yeah, Michael, I don't think we've looked at prospective sites in 20 years.
It's been a while. Um, I do remember having some telephone discussions. Um, Blair would occasionally give me a call and we would discuss, you know, appraisal. Uh, that that would come in um that would be helpful to looking at
why why a contract's written in a certain way. Um, I guess that can can continue on that basis. Does the name Barry do anything some of us? Yeah, Barry Present. I saw him I saw him about a month ago.
Oh, okay. Um, and while you're talking about that, um, you did away with with a planner in the in this in the um rules, right? Uh, urban design or planning,
right? But planning and an accountant are so many different things. I mean, all right. Just you loved everything together. Well, we're we're again, we're open to suggestions. This is um uh our best
effort based on um you'll notice I actually I actually have uh I think up top there's a an architect, an engineer, and then an architect or engineer. So, I was per looking to have three professionals, two architects and one engineer, or heaven forbid, two
engineers and one architect. Um, I know exactly right. Um, if if if we feel we have far too many architects and engineers, the rest you weigh in. Um, then we can double that out and do a planner and separate from
the accounting. But I suspect the engineers in the room, I'd say having good engineers is um certainly beneficial. But again, I I'm only saying to this say you offer us some suggestions. If you have ideas of something you'd prefer, you want us to
focus more on planning. We don't really have much planning purpose. Do we do we have any uh planners that are filling a role right now? I think uh we had Sam We had Sam Sam Shannon. Yeah, he was he was a planner. And I think
Virginia, I'm not real afraid of this and having the seven at large because consider the work we put into this committee. You've been the longest. I'm the second longest. There's not going to be somebody with no experience or expertise that's going to be one of the
seven that wants to jump on this committee. I think it's going to be somebody even if they're at the at large that have some background. Perhaps perhaps you could state that that even if they're at large, we would hope that they would look into some of these
areas. I think that's going to be up to a school board member. Yeah. You know, if you're going to talk about implementation, you might be able to say even, you know, perhaps at large could fill some of these, you know,
anyway, move this. We need to move this along. And I need a motion to extend the meeting because we're 10 minutes. Move. move to the extend the meeting for half an hour. Can I interrupt again? Yes. I have to leave in eight minutes for a
meeting. And has to leave too. So, uh, staff, will that leave us with a quorum if we have to leave? Is there anything else to vote on? No, you don't have anything to vote on the policies. We're not voting on changes. Recommendations.
Yeah, just for feedback. Oh, shoot. But I do need I do have something I do need to vote on. I'm sorry. Yes. So, don't leave. Yes, we do. We need I do have one thing that I if I if I may. I'd like to you guys have to extend the meeting. Go ahead. That's
okay. We'll extend the meeting and then I'll I'll make the motion to to ex to request um David's extension as chair. Okay. Well, this is actually for
clarification. Um this waiver consideration is not necessarily to vote on him being the chair. Uh for those who are unfamiliar, um the chair has we're giving you two years, four years and then they have to if they if they want
to re-up um the the committee as a whole has to vote to afford them the opportunity to run again. And this waiver is that opportunity. If in January when we actually do our our uh
reord that time we will vote on who will be the new chair and who will be the uh vice chair and at that time if Mr. Porter chooses to want to do that again he's welcome to do so but at this time we're only voting so that you committee
members will afford him the opportunity if he so chooses to do that. So that's what this waiver consideration for clarification. All you're doing is making a vote to go to the board because the board under this policy has to grant
her of the term limits for the chair for court. Correct. So all this is doing and they have to have that 60 days prior to our election and we will take So all you're doing is saying yeah we don't care if order runs again or not. Fine. Let the board grant the waiver. So that's what this is. Correct. and and we are doing this now
in October because we will not be able to make the October board meeting because we won't know the vote until a few moments from now. Um so this bill I second the motion asated and as amended by by the conversation
except we're not going to give them 35 days to uh [Music] Okay. Can we do the vote? We're doing the vote on extending the meeting. Yeah, we got to extend the meeting. Got to extend. All right. Vote on that. Vote on extending the meeting. I don't have a second.
I'll second. Okay. Cheshure. Mr. Chesher is the second. Okay. David Porter. Yes. France Makaboo. Yes. J. Yes. John Chesher. Kevin Wilkinson. Yes. Lisa Ravis. Yes. Michael Gelfan.
Yes. Michael Guida. No. We know. Yes. Tom Burger. Yes. But it's kind of inappropriate because I'm leaving camera. Virginia Paris. Yes.
Okay. All right. Now, we need to do a vote for the uh uh the waiver. Um chairman waiver consideration. Chairman waiver consideration. Um did we had a f we had a first second? Okay. And uh then can we do the vote call?
Well, I just want to make sure David's in. Yeah, I'm okay. Okay. I want I want a raise in salary though. We'll double it. We'll double it. We'll double it. At least at least double. Oh, all right. Then I'm definitely in.
Okay. All right. Go ahead. Uh David Porter. Yes. France Makaboo. Yes. Jim Mald. Yes. John Chesher. Yes. Kevin Wilkinson. Yes. Lisa Res. Yes. Michael Gelfan. In spite of the lack of backup. Yes.
Uh, yes. Merger, did he leave our Okay, I'm left. But Michael, I am a security risk. Don't even Don't even go. Yeah, I know. I' I've got a slew of
these and I I want to say I appreciate staff's efforts in drafting being in their shoes and other context. It's death by a thousand cuts. Uh and and I appreciate them listening and and taking into account the these suggestions because they're all met in a positive
way. If I can just go through a number because I know time is is is wanting and other folks have items I'm certain also. Are we changing policies or do we have one comments?
Want to stick on this one for right now. 93. Um the deletion of life cycle costs on line 49. Um is that incorporated elsewhere? I don't I don't believe that. No, I don't believe so. Yeah. All right. I would suggest that we keep
that in. something that we do look at as as we look at projects. Um in terms of uh the next item under line 64 um do we not evaluate engineers and architects for performance?
But this is this is under construction services contractor performance evaluations. So there was no performance evaluations under design um before. So this is this is construction performance because it's under construction services. We may want to then add that into the
design process that line. Yeah. Um next under line 82 I'm sorry line 72 the deletion uh that's because of board policies I guess and that's now a third rail.
Yeah. SB policy small business. Um we don't have an MWBE policy anymore. And this this should have been changed back when we did all those changes, but it just didn't get caught. So, we're doing it now. Uh, personally question, but I
understand where the district is on a legal basis. Uh, line 82. Um, I don't know that um we're just going to be evaluating documentation, if you would. I I don't know that we need to have the additional
um subject or noun there if you would um because it appears as though you have to go out and um view the school the facility yourself. Yes. A court would have to order the facility
um to evaluate it. And so we were just clarifying that it's we're providing you documentation to validate. I don't think that hurts leaving that there. All right. But that would apply to everything under construction administration then because we're not going out and
monitoring or inspecting. No, but the process um I see your point on on quality assurance. Yes. Makes a make how do you how do you do validate quality assurance without being there? Yeah. I I see. But those are other ones where we say
process. Yeah. Yes. We do rec recognize the corks playing a role in our process. All righty. Those are all mine on uh 093. Do we have any others on the 1093? Anything else on the torque policy by anybody?
Okay. Next. Um do you Well, we might as well just do it just because it's here just to make sure that nobody's on it. 7.07 07 by the way I guess is the next
one that we're not but that's already been reviewed that's already been reviewed this is for repealing any any comments on it no we have it somewhere else is there some or um I thought we had clarified uh it's
state statute well I I'll let Mr. Guido if he wants to comment on it but um Florida building code has taken over taken over this and has included it in their language. This was done in 93 before Florida building code had anything about uh the specifics about
HVAC requirements design requirements and um energy conservation energy conservation and all that. So uh subsequently um this needed to go away because we we are obligated to follow Florida building code. So
does the code cover these areas? Is we Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, it does. All right. What's next? 70 722. The change order policy is the next one up. [Music]
[Music] want to start. Yeah. Somebody got questions, comments, changes. Sure, I do. Hi, John. Um, on policy, please reference the line. 281 281
281 Documentation required construction change order. Such documentation shall be signed by the architect, engineer, and the contractor prior to submission to the district.
Yeah, that change was just done because the the language before was was pretty terrible because it said um you know the AR and the contractor prior to submission the district and that didn't make any sense. So we just assumed it meant submission to the district. The only reason we changed that was for a
little bit of clarity because the language didn't make much sense but it's uh oh scriers. Yeah, I was just adding in one word to make the English correct. Yes. Yeah, that's all we did. We just added the word to because it just submission the district. It made no sense.
Okay. Line 288. Okay. You're So you're not including deductive change order change orders anymore in the cumulative limits by the uh approving authority. I'm not sure we'd want to do that.
previously it had been excluded which I think is the right way. Um we'll make a note of this. Let's come back to I mean we can follow up with you on it but uh I'd have to look at how this apply you know affects other things before we I don't think do that. So we'll
yeah have a credit change order for 200,000 that kind of resets the guys Right. Right. Well, and I would think that really critical now because of having to use your limits. Yes. To meet the 35day critical. Yeah. So, it's even more critical to be
able to deduct those 29 295 should be forwarded. Yeah, that's I guess that's the one where you're telling us we're not going to see these anymore. Well, no. So, this had a this this review portion here was specifically to Cork, but then there's also a reporting
and we've we've um added that we're going to report everything in change orders as according to 1.093. So, that's why the language in 1.093 93 became more uh in-depth because we're using that language to dictate how we report change orders rather than have uh potential
conflicts because we didn't want to have it in two two places and there might be conflicts between the language, right? The 1093 says you're going to do it at the end of the project for contingency use. Yes, but not for change orders. Change orders come every month as we go through. Um that is not
changing. That's kind how we do it now. Contingencies and change orders are two separate pro or items. Change orders do affect the purchase order obviously and increase it which goes beyond the what the board has previously approved. Change or contingencies do not the board's already approved that money. So
that's how we um delineate the line there. So if it if it is going to uh you know affect what the board has already pre-approved you know approved in that PO then we have to bring it through you guys either as a report if it's been delegated authority approved or um as a pre-approval if it's above that. So you
guys are still involved monthly uh on all of those things that will change the actual approved values and then the further we we did go and clarify or restrict the use of contingency for purely contingency items. So in the past we have used if we had five doors we're adding another door
that's a contingenc that's a change order we've taken that out of the possibility because that's okay I know you we had stricter rules about what can be used for contingency we'll get to that but tell me tell me again why you're deleting this regarding change orders it's covered someplace
else covered in policy yeah it's covered in the court policy and and if we have you that they have to be reviewed by you here then we wouldn't be able to uh provide the delegated authority review in time because then we'd have to bring them to you before they become
okay that would apply to everything including stuff change orders as a report if they're under the delegated authority expenditure limits correct so even change orders if they're under the delegated authority can be approved
by staff we get to see the report and we can comment on those on a monthly basis for the board saying this shouldn't have been allowed or whatever our comment might be and if it's projected to go over that delegate authority will be a pre-approval that you'll have comment on before it goes to the board as well.
Yes. Okay. Line 307. All change CCDs shall be reported to court as soon as practical consistent with board policy 1093. Okay. As soon as practical. All right.
That's all I have. Okay. So, we don't get the 35day limit like the change orders. Do you get approved after the 35day? Because that's automatic approval. No, it says as soon as practical, we
should have within 35 days. I hope you don't have any vacations planned then. What vacation? That's my 20 years ago. Do we have any other questions on on uh the change order policy? Okay, Michael, anything? Um I had one
question at line 288. Oh actually no that um you you you you've addressed we just we we resolve that. Yeah. So I don't have that there. Thank you. When the resolution to 288 is staff's going to consider it. We're not taking that out. Correct.
Reevaluate it. Okay. We're done with this one. Okay. Okay. Good. Next up, last one I think, right? Uh, this will be do retainage first because it's it's the um it's already been it's already gone through
cork. Are you guys No comments on retainage then? Oh yeah, just so for clarity so everybody knows we have not made Yeah, this went through court years ago. Um and it is uh has not changed. So um just a couple of typo type items.
Uh, line 11. Uh, I think the auto paragraphing's gone crazy on this one. Um, that 723 on 723. Right. Line 11 that needs to be moved to one go to four. Uh, 24 goes up
to 22. And um, let me get there. Uh, 63 goes to um, actually delete 60. Yes. Uh 62 goes to line 60. There probably may be others as I go through this. I I hate words.
Yeah. Numbering. It's very It's very difficult in the track changes to get all this uh um formatting perfectly. Every time you try and move one up, it deletes like three lines and it keeps it there. It becomes very frustrating. So yes, we understand that there there
might be something like that that gets um tweaked in the final version when everything's accepted. Bring back word perfect 14. Really? Amen. Okay. So, is that it for 723? Yep. That way.
And we will use 7225 which is the contingency use version policy changes. Okay. Didn't we look at this one too before? did. Yeah. But we had to so um as part and you know
if Michael doesn't mind uh as part of what we looked at holistically in this is that the challenge of meeting 35 days for change orders isn't just uh in its own silo. It affects many other aspects including the workload and and bandwidth of our general managers, our SPAs and
everything else because now we have to shift more of that focus on change orders to make sure they're they're properly reviewed and expedited and including our uh third party review. So we are looking at uh alleviating some of the um burden on those on those
resources by making modifications to the contingency. Therefore allowing us to more rapidly approve change orders where as we've met with uh or with through the third party audit firm as well as with the small business council. Um they've all made recommendations heavily saying
that we we over micromanage contingency uses the way they are because they're already part of the contract. And so we looked at this from the standpoint of trying to be a better business partner as well as trying to alleviate some of that bandwidth from our resources so that we could uh expedite change orders. Okay.
Yeah. I I see what this policy does and is actually puts a lot more pressure on staff to get it right because not more eyes like Cork looking at that going, "Wait a minute. What are you proving $1,000 a yard for concrete for?" No,
you're absolutely right. Um, now it's on you guys and we get the report at the end of the job. So, there could be some pink slips at the end of the job if it hasn't been managed well by the staff. Michael, can blackout dates be in a contract on
when the contractor can like you do for frequent flyer miles like if we know you know this during the holiday season, you know, during the December and the way we read the last line of that statute is that we couldn't do that because
they didn't plug in anything for legal holidays or or weekends or anything. So interesting. Yeah. Are there any appeals to this uh statute that was proposed? Not yet. It would be somebody would have to sue and so I'm not aware that anybody has
sued on it. You know, this that particular statute um it was really um so there were you know I think even our legislative people weren't aware of it till we brought it to their attention. We said hey hardship on you guys to do this. every
government agency. This isn't just the school district. Yeah. Yeah. Michael, on that issue, the statute does not have any type of a force measure uh item. So, if there is some type of hurricane or
otherwise, um I think you need to get a hold of the governor's office so when they declare a state of emergency, the tolling of time limits includes uh these items. Sometimes they do have blanket uh tolling, but not always.
Good point. That is a good point. Mr. Sanchez, if you're still on, that may be something for the legislative delegation to consider getting inserted into this statute to deal with uh you know, holiday legal holidays or measure.
Yeah. Or hurricanes. Hurricanes. I think the emergencies are covered under separate policy, but um the holidays I'm not sure about. I don't know if Paul, you can help me out, but I think there's there's separate policy that allows us to do emergency um contracts and I imagine we
do emergency change orders as well if there's a emergency. What I think Mr. Gelf fan's talking about is something that an event that would occur that would somehow alter that 35 days and and he is you know just like with COVID we saw where the the
governor was signing executive orders that said hey all time frames stop or start or whatever. So in an emergency that is always sort of standard. The governor will do that. Typically it'll apply to those affected counties. Um, so
that would help us out in that. As far as like government holidays and all that stuff, the statute would have to say that it doesn't apply. Um, so the way that it is written, it is 35 days straight, Saturdays, Sundays, holidays,
everything's included. And I think Mr. reporter is saying maybe that's something that our legislative team could could sort of talk to the powers that be that perhaps um an amendment to the statute could be uh included that would not you know count those certain
days but the way that it's written in standard uh interpretation would be it is 35 days just from start to finish would using 35 working days no calendar calendar says calendar.
I know, but that's what I'm saying. Suggesting that it say working days. Business days. Yeah. No, it's a good point. It being commissioned. Uh our committees do not want to use working days because of a problem of how to determine, right?
Yeah. Religious. Yeah. We only work three days a week. That's why you have so much time to be the court chair next. All right. Let's keep going here so we don't have to extend again. We got 15 minutes. Comments on 7225. All right. I got comments on every page.
Um line 14. Okay. You talk about buyout adjustment that replies to a CM, not an architect. That should come off. Yeah. Did we use the same language in the CM and just cut and pasted? Is that No. So, a lot of these changes were done
but between you and and Jim back in years ago. So, in those cases, we left the language because they had already gone through court. So, a lot of those we didn't make modifications to. We kept the language. So, this one's new. I'm pretty sure this isn't new. I I'll add it. Well, if it doesn't need to be there,
get rid of it regardless. Makes sense by uh line 15. I don't think we should be paying the architect for correcting his designers. I believe that whole thing was meant for CMS, wasn't it, John? That whole section,
but it's listed as architects continue. Yeah. No, so like I said before, this was the language from the previous change that got redlined. So, okay. Either way, just just that's fine. We'll we'll evaluate it. But it didn't get modified because it had already been modified and approved.
That's why we left. Line 16, you talk about regulatory agency requirements that should be removed according to your you're correct on that. Okay. Line 19. Why are we calling it a purchase order modification? Why not
just a change to the contract? Do we even have purchase orders to architects? Yes, every vendor gets a purchase order. Only thing we're familiar with is the contract. I just suggest you make that contract. Okay. Um,
next one is line 54 talking about construction contingency and definition. Yes. Uh, it cannot be otherwise accounted for in the GMP not project budget. Well, not all of our
um projects have GMPS. So I think that was one of the comments that we discussed when we were making the language. We this has to apply to everything that we do. Well, yeah. Say under definition within the contractor's GMP.
Okay. Well, we can look at that and and Okay. Yep. Um 59 does construction consented. See what it can be used for. I don't believe it should be used for contractor errors. No, we we are adding contractor errors
and emissions as a as a um a new um uh category. Thank you. A new category because right now the way that buyout was defined was the difference between the GMP value and their actual expenditures for the scope
of work. That's how the buyout is is classified. So unfortunately we have plenty of buyout contingency uses that fall under that per policy but are really errors of the contractor who have missed a scope. There was an air area where there was a gap between the plumber and the and the roofer.
That's an emission. Yes, it's an emission but it's not what might be on the design to make the connection but the contractor doesn't have a sub that's covering that. That would be a a contractor error and emission. So yes, we want to add another uh category so that we can track that separately from buyout because
unfortunately contingency is in their PO. It's in their contract and it's part of their risk. So right now the only use they can do it for is buyout but buyout covers even their errors and emissions. So right now it's classified as a buyout even though it's their own error and we have to allow them to do it per policy and per contract and the way the the
contingencies used. So because of that, we're adding a new category so we can clearly identify what we consider a contractor omission versus just a buyout. So that at the end of the job, we can now categorize how much percentage they used of their contingency for their own errors and use
it as part of our evaluation of their performance. That's an interesting concept. I'm not sure how you're going to do it in actuality, but if that's your plan or seeing us, just it's a point that's been a sticking point for us is that we no offense to the contractors in the room, but we we
see that and we kind of feel like, wait a second, they're getting away with it because they forgot something and we don't call them out for it. That's an omission buyout. It's the design error part that I've you have a point on that. We may want to kind of tweak it, but it often times
it's an entire scope that they just forgot to get a price on. Oh, yeah. Well, they could still use back later and say, "Oh, we use buyout to cover it." That's not fair. So, okay, John, keep going. We got 10 minutes. 160. Uh, do you want to add in there constructibility initiatives?
We had that before and I don't see it. the contractor suggests something and you've called it constructibility initiative someplace else [Music] [Music] and you've added uh or you've taken out
regulatory agency but add um don't you want to add supporting district departments list of uh contingency So we this is this is where we're trying to clearly define what's a contingency versus what's a change order. So like if in the
future if uh academics comes and says hey we want to add this new uh wing with with so that would be a change order. We don't want to contingency to be used for that because contingency is part of the contractor's risk and if we start using it for change orders then we alleviate
their responsibility of that risk because now we've used it for our use and now they can't then later they can come to us and say hey I would have had $80,000 more but you maybe use a contingency to do a change order and now all of a sudden we can't we can't hold them hope it should be a
so those will be bro so some of those going through now as contingency the supporting district says I need another smoke detector change order. Change order. It's not on the original drawings, it's change order, right? That's the thing. And then you you all will see those more. So, the issue is we're shifting a
lot more into the change order with these with these things. Uh but also we're trying to alleviate the the load on the contingencies to allow us to do those change orders faster. But it's cleaning up contingency where it's really used for stuff that you know already in the scope.
It's already in the scope. You're already putting doors in and now we found something that was wrong with them and now that gets contingency. But if you add 50 doors, No, I'm sorry. That wasn't in the scope. That's a change order, right? Yes, sir. Okay. Line 78
contingency funds uh for design design contingency, what are we doing? They include contingency funds may include item C design contingency which is included again shouldn't that be architect's contract and not purchase order. Okay.
Wordsmith that's so it's same comment. And then on line 79 construction contingency which is included in the construction manager DMP. Might clean that up a little bit. Which one was that? Saying that he Oh, next line. Sorry.
Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay, number line 97. See what's going on here. 97. 97. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. I was um Maris was asking me a question. contractor errors
and emissions in there for which insufficient funds were carried in the divisional line items within the approved GMP. Don't know what that means. May I offer a suggestion?
Sure. that you put in contractor's errors in admission means mistakes, oversightes or failures made by a contractor in the course of performing their professional duties. I've never seen a errors and emissions defined this way.
Insufficient funds were carried. I also wouldn't use the word plans. I would call them drawings cuz the errors on the wall section drawing that's not a plan. Okay. Okay. Uh 111
making two engineers and one architect. Talk about designers purchase order again. Believe that should be architects agreement or architect's contract. Uh 114. Same thing for design errors.
could be mistakes, oversightes, or failure made by design professional in preparing project documents, plans, and specs, not whatever else that means there. Not sure who came up with that definition, but I don't think that's standard in the
industry. None of this contract standard in the industry or these policies. So, well, lawyers know what design errors and emissions mean, and it probably ought to state that. Um 145
unforeseen conditions. One of the definition is or conditions clearly indicated in the facility as built. Yes. So we we we added that in that language in because
uh if the asbuilts show something that's clearly you might not be able to physically see it but if it's clearly defined in the asbuilts and they failed to do their due diligence of research and they and they run into it it's no longer an unforeseen condition because it was clearly identified in asbuilts. If the asbuilts don't clearly identify it and they can't do d uh
non-destructive demolition to to uh then it would be a truly unforeseen condition. What about if the asbuilts are wrong? As about 80% of our asbuilts are wrong again, it's a true it's a true unforeseen condition. The point here is that if the asbuilt showed something
buried, they can't say, "Oh, we it's an unforeseen condition." No, it is foreseen because the asbuilts show it, you should have been able to recognize that. If the asbuilt showed it over there and it's found over here, then it's not a clear thing and it would be an unforeseen condition. That's why we put that language in there to make it
clear that that's that is we're we're not considering clear identified asbuilt drawings as an unforeseen condition. I think that was your next John 166 again talk about design purchase order.
You may want to make that contract or agreement whatever it's called. Uh 174 construction contingency may be used for again I object to contractor errors.
Uh again regulatory or you deleted regulatory agency requirements that almost in every case that there was a regulatory requirement it really should have just been a change order. If they if the county adds a turn lane it's new scope it should be a
change order. It's not really a regulatory contingency use. And what about why did you and you deleted um supporting district department requirements again because we that's going to be a change order constructibility initiative. You're
going to do that as a change order. We're going to we're going to look at that one specifically because you mentioned it up up top didn't have it. So we're going to look at that one. But the idea was to clean it up to just the specific things that we we felt were contingencies. 176. You don't like that one? Can that be reasonably inferred
from the contract documents and work? Uh, that would be what unforeseen conditions defined as. So that we didn't need this extra language. We didn't want it confusing it. It's an unforeseen condition or it's not. That this is this is just a generic language that describes an unforeseen condition.
Okay. Starting at uh 177 through 185, you've deleted all that. Yes, sir. And why? uh because this language was added in as part of the changes that were looked at three years ago to almost de facto add a contingency as a change order because
this is um if you're doing a um existing facility you can increase or decrease the uh it says right here increase or decrease the quantities to meet this. So this would be like we have three doors on the plans but we need to do six now so it's going to be contingency. That's a change order and should have been done
as a change order. Should always be done as a change order. We're trying to clear up and make the line less gray so that we are clear that things should go as change orders or things should go as contingency. Question I've got for Holly. How does this get introduced into our contracts?
Because this is all telling the architects and the contractors what their new requirements are going to be. We have it all marked up already, ready to go. Can you just insert it as a reference to the policy? Then you don't have to change it in two places. We do. I mean, we do say you have to
comply with all board policies. If it's something that we think they should be highlighted to them, we certainly can do that as well. All of this stuff should be included, but not limited to Yeah. Because this this basically changes what they have to do and how they can charge. Yes.
You have you have three minutes. This is our last policy, right? Yeah, basically. Still, you got more couple more. Uh, starting at Or do you want to do the meeting thing? Yeah, let me get a meeting extension for 10 minutes. Yeah, 15 minutes. Do I have a motion to extend
for 15 minutes? Virginia and Michael, go ahead and pull the staff. David Porter, yes. France Makab, yes. John Chesher, yes. Kevin Wilkinson, yes. Lisa Ravis,
yes. Michael, yes. Michael Guida, yes. Virginia Parish, yes. [Music] I got to go with him after. Yes. All right. Go ahead. Okay. Line 216. Now, I guess this is
where you're changing the delegation of authority and it says 217 218 which align with the categories of use as defined within this policy. The superintendent or designate may approve
uses of contingency which align with categories of use. Okay, that's fine. And then you delete the next bunch of stuff. Yes. What's going on there? because these set up delegated authority levels of of approval and uh two things is that
first thing is that in both the contingency and the change order policy we've eliminated delegated authority at the project coordinator level and the SPA level so the first level of delegated authority would come at general manager anyway um so the second part of this is that this is part of the
strangle hold and micromanagement that we were referring to that was really uh was really brought to our attention that restricting a certain contingency use level to the general manager or to the
the director or etc. Um is really above and beyond what most uh municipalities do with contingency and contingency is in the contractor's PO already. it's been the policy will set what guidelines that that contingency can be used for
and the board has already approved that line u for contingency use. So as long as it falls into one of those categories and is under the approved amount by the board then we fair price and it's fair price because we are reviewing that then the issue is that we don't need to set a specific delegated
authority level of Maris can only look at things up to 50,000 or him or or Michael to 90 or whatever it is. The idea here is to expedite the process because I'm sure you can ask any contractor in this room, they probably have outstanding CCUs and and part of
that time frame that causes major delays is working through this getting the approvals and everything else. And as as part of our meetings with uh auditors and and and small business, this was one of the recommended recommendations they had. So, we're trying to align with stuff that's done, you know, in other
municipalities. Who's going to make the approval? Where does it say who's doing the approval? superintendent. It's it's a superintendent. So, at this point, all contingencies use regardless of value as long as it's under the board approved amount be will be signed off on
by the superintendent or delegated authority staff underneath him. And that's uh at the very end of this, it establishes that that is an internal polic or procedure that is um done between the superintendent or does he shall administer this procedure. So
basically Dave and Michael and Joe will have to get with the um with the superintendent and decide at what level they want to assign that authority for the contingency and that will be an internal procedure. It won't be part of policy. So that's something that they're
going to have to amend later decide how it's going to be actually implemented. It's not going to have any input into that. No. And currently, no, you will not because it isn't it's um that is where you're going to get a report at the end of the at the end of the thing because as we said before, uh this whole process
if if we're talking change orders going to the board, which contingencies would follow that same line currently, it's 70 days. They're doing work on a site that they run into an unforeseen condition. We can't delay them 70 days to use the money that's already in their contract to solve that problem. So the point here
is we're trying to expedite this stuff, alleviate bandwidth on on management and allow change orders to be processed faster. This is part of that that that step. If we don't if we have to make these type of changes to allow the change orders to be processed faster and
this this takes a huge burden off of staff monthly to allow them to focus on change orders because we do focus on change orders first. you're you're still in order for the say the chief gets to approve a contingency use, you're still going to have to make the explanation to him and he's probably going to want it in
writing. So why not just give it to us as well on the monthly basis. The contractor has to use part of the contingency. They don't have to tell you it all. They just go and that's not true. They still have to submit it contingency to use because that's still part of the policy. So they will say we're going to
use contingency for $10,000 for this uh unforeseen condition. We we still are going to get that that will still be reviewed internally. It'll still be go through its uh you know the the sniff tests and everything. But the idea is that if it aligns with the use of
policy, if it's a error admission or if it's a if it's a buyout or whatever, then we will say, okay, it aligns with policy, it's in the board's already pre-approved contingency that they've allowed the contractor to use to finish this project. We believe it's acceptable, and we'll say it's good. And
then at the end of the project, you guys will have the full list of everything that was done for that. I would just want to make sure that staff is scrutinizing the heck out of there because I mean, I can see the contractors now going, I can use more money than I could before because it's just being reviewed by a staff guy.
We we completely understand that and that's why we first thing we did was eliminate the delegated authority at the lower ends before we went through the whole thing to make sure that everything that we review at least makes it to a general manager level before. So that that's extra um you know
oversight on that. Yeah. Okay. I completely disagree with this and I didn't see that anywhere that explanation anywhere in this summary of policy changes that you gave us and I don't know how you're going to proceed with this to the um I forget who you
said you're going to next with this but I think you need to make it very clear to the board that you're taking this away from Cork that they're not going to be looking at contingency use anymore because if I was them I thought that would be our main charge. is to look how money is
being spent. And I understand the money's already in the contract, but he hasn't been authorized to use it yet, and now you're taking that review away from us. And I don't think that's what the board wants court to do, to not review it.
Well, again, we we appreciate your perspective. We're going to take that into consideration and and I think it's already been mentioned. of some of the feedback that we have internally, but it's also came out of our our review with our audit firm. That was one of the first things that they kind of uh
criticized us on said, why would you put money in the contract and then make them go through an entire change order process. So, just so you know, this isn't strictly staff. Yes, it is staff. We do recognize that'll this will free up that space, that bandwidth for us,
but it did in fact come from our car rigging room um our audit firm evaluation. You're you're welcome to attend the board meeting when they workshop it and speak about what it's you know removing. Now when we look at the what FC1 items
anyway, it's a report. Yeah. For her. So all we do is tell well we don't we think this was too much. We couldn't stop it. It's already been spent and we give them our opinion that no, you guys made a mistake there. Don't do that again. But now it's going to be at
the end of the project and we may not even have a chance to um comment on it then. Or we may get 10 pages for one project where all the contingency was used and it's going to be like, "Yeah, right. We're going to just okay, whatever. It's already done." And
but Okay. Any other line item? That's all I have. Does anybody else have any comments on anyone else? I don't Michael, Michael. Sorry about that. All righty. Um,
get back to on line 22 on that. So board approved now goes beyond just what the board actually is voting on. They are they are actively delegating at this
point beyond the superintendent. Not sure I follow. Um the board had had previously delegated contingency use to staff up to a threshold. Right
now we're continuing to do that but just instead of dollar value thresholds at that last line of the policy that says staff will set up the procedure in which we evaluate them.
Um, is that going to go is that procedure going to go back for the board for the board's approval as a policy or is it just delegated the superintendent? Yes, the superintendent's um directive
to work with us on a procedure as to who's going to approve it, whether it's a G, you know, like I say, general manager is going to be that that one look to make sure. It sounds like the board won't be approving or rejecting whatever you come up with. Doesn't seem like they're going to see the numbers
that Oh, you're talking about the procedure or the actual numbers? The numbers. I think that's what Michael's talking about. How much can each level spent? The idea is there are no numbers. The idea is that it they're going to set where the signature lies. If they're comfortable at lying going all the way
to Michael and he's got to sign every single one of them, that's fine. Or Dave or or Joe or whoever it is. But currently the idea is there are no numbers because the numbers is what delays the process. So what becomes the threshold to determine at what level of approval or
review it occurs? Yeah, I think that's what we're missing. I mean we used to have levels of approval and and court work. Well, we're saying there is no levels of approval. It's not like any one person can do up to a certain dollar value. We're saying essentially what will
happen is at some point we will make a procedure that says just forgive me but general manager will be the um the person who will uh review and make sure that they get approved when that procedure is established through the
superintendent. that will be the person. He will be the person who will review all of those and say, "Yep, they do comply with and they smell whatever." He called it the smell test that um that that concept um one person will be that
that point and will be that through that the entire project up to the threshold of the contingency that's in the contract. So, he can't, you know, $300,000 is contingency in that construction GMP. He just approves things up to that point. They hit that
limit, then we're done. And that's what where Jud was saying, we we've been taking on a lot of the burden ourselves when we start using contingency for things that shouldn't be contractor's um purpose. Then they turn around and
say to us, well, you used all our money for that, so pay for for these items on change order. I guess we see how it works. Maybe a year from now, we're back reviving all of this stuff. And that is very possible. So, and that's actually a good point to be made of of a lot of these things. Again,
I know um it really wasn't said well or or clearly. Um staff did a and I got to give them credit. Staff did a heck of a job of trying to come up with these all the policies uh adjustments and work within the systems. I know it's not great, but
um we're not acknowledging perfection on these. All right. I just wanted to mention how long it's taken for us to see these. I I don't see us coming back and revising this in the next five years. That's how long this one took.
Let me if if I can because I know we're watching the clock here. On line 131, um the language in the middle held and controlled by the owner. I know that's I'll call standard construction contract
lingo, but in this case, should that be by the district, the board? Because I don't know that we use owner elsewhere in here. We actually use owner a lot between our contracts and our and our language. So, um,
in contracts we may, but not in the policy. You're you're right. So we will we'll we can review that language the change this right here two minutes I know owner might need to say the district and district yeah yeah understood
line 186 can you just give me a 30 second recap as to when it comes from construction contingency what is now the difference between that and projecting so that is one of the reasons why we
added so many definitions up front because this policy affects every single uh type of contingency that's used throughout the district and there are four general types of contingency. Uh construction contingency which is the stuff that's in the GMP that's for that
actual project. Um there is the project contingency which is our budget that we have assigned for that project that's in our budget sheets. That's the money that's in our contingency saying, "Oh, if we need to make a change order that comes out of our contingency or if we
need to add a testing lab, we pay we have to move money to a line. We we pay that directly." Those type of things is is is the project contingency. There's also um Can you with that again? I'm sorry. So So project contingency, the distinction between that and
contingency. Yes. So construction contingency is stuff that's in the GMP as defined by construction contingency up here project budget. It's in the GMP and it's approved by the board and that's the the number that's
in the contractor's purchase order to do contingency use adjustments. A project contingency though is the um is the money that's held by the district previously shown as owner. I know that's what we need to change it.
Um that is in our project budget. So our project budget includes both the cont the line item for construction, the line item for architecture services, the line item for testing service, the line item a bunch of line items in it. And one of those line items for activity codes is
is a the contingency for the project. That is what we use if we have a change order to the project. That's how we fund it. It's coming out of our project's contingency. But because this um this policy affected four different types of of contingency and they weren't always
clearly identified which one they were talking about, we went through and tried to make clarifications to it. So that's why that you have more additional uh definitions in here. You got one minute. Construction is already approved by the
board. It's in the contract. The project contingency pays for change. It's in our budget. Not awarded to the vendor yet. It's in our budget, but we haven't given we haven't assigned it anything or encumbered it. Just money. Contingency pays for change orders. Construction contingency pays for contingency uses. Yes.
May want to take a look back on 52 for construction contingency and speak of and some language that gets to that it's been approved by the board. Um because that then would um
differentiate okay or he can email his comments to David and sorry my my apologies Mr. Galp and we're kind of struggling with the the time. Um so my recommendation would be that if
any member has comments um that they email them to Mr. appropes. Do not email any other do not CC any other cork member. Um so that uh Dave Dolan and and Michael Tublio and Jud can go ahead and
review those comments. And we took notes on the ones already. Additional is and please make sure you reference the policy number and the line number when you're making your comments to make it easier for us to find that where you're referencing. Let me make one uh thing here. We have
now set up, you had asked before, set up one email address. We now have an address that's cork schools. So you don't have to go to Maris or myself or Dorothy or whatever. So I was I wasn't given that email today.
Okay. Staff updates today and that way you'll have one email you won't have to worry about whether it's myself or Maris or everybody get that. By the way, it was cork palm beacheschools.org. It's going to get emailed to you, but
you'll get it emailed to you. Right. Right. And then again, just as a sunshine reminder, any cork member that has a comment, it should be emailed just to that cork email. Do not include anyone else in that email. Right.
Okay. Uh, any issues on minutes quickly? Hopefully not. They were good. All right. Anything else? Kevin, go ahead. Kevin, are you muted? Yes, you are.
Sorry again. I just heard from Bruce Alexander a little while ago. He had an emergency. That's why he's absent. So, I just want it. It'll be marked as excused. Thanks. All right. Thank you. Okay. We are adjourned. Thank you everyone. Thank you for your
patience. Next meeting November 15th. Happy Halloween. Can't wait. [Music]