Bruce Alexander >> present. >> Makaboo >> present. >> Jim Al. >> Kevin Wilkinson >> here. >> Lisa Reves >> here. >> Ber.
>> Virginia Ferez >> here. Christopher Tommpkins. Missing. Okay. Um, >> Mr. Michael. >> Okay, we got you. >> Oh, cuz I'm getting >> an excused absence.
>> I guess you don't need the excused absence, Michael. You're here. >> All right, I'll I'll I'll land bankank that one. >> Okay. >> The bow tie needs the absence. >> Couple of announcements and some discussion. Uh John Chesher has resigned
from Cork. Um in his resignation letter, he stated pretty much that he felt Cork's relevance was diminished. Um particularly with the item that Cork had a majority negative opinion about a
couple of months ago and then the board unanimously accepted it without even pulling it for discussion and I was physically at that meeting that they could have asked questions if they wanted to. Um so he felt frustrated that our we weren't being heard and you know
we serve at the pleasure of the board but if you know behind the scenes things convinces the board otherwise we can't stop that. um our voice is last heard when we give the board uh our written report and could have been with a verbal
uh reply at the meeting but they the board chose to accept what was presented by staff. So, um, my question for staff, and it'll be a rebuttal, is because of policy changes and the increase in
delegated authority, um, is Cork still relevant? >> Well, I may I I can start, but I see Virginia first or >> Yeah, Virginia. >> Well, I can hear Joe first.
Well, it won't stop with me because I'm going to turn to Michael. So, we may be a little bit a little bit longwinded, but I I will say this. I just want to let um Cork know and anybody else who's listening what transpired um you know, as in terms of that one particular item.
There's I think there may have been other issues that may have influenced John's decision. I don't know. Um but if just this just is focused on this one last issue regarding NTE. Um yes court did have a majority vote to uh to not
move forward with that one item with the with the pre-construction uh for his reasons. Um, and what what happened after the meeting is that what normally happens is I I normally communicate the board court's votes to the superintendent
and um and as time allows, you know, court meets the Wednesday before the board or the Thursday before the Wednesday board meeting. um superintendent meets with some of the board well he tries to meet with all the board members and tries to communicate with the board members about what the what transpired at the court meeting so
he can handle oneonone meetings I don't have I don't I don't typically have oneonone one-on-one meetings with board members um so I don't I don't have a chance to talk to them directly that often as often as superintendent obviously um so he he did communicate
with the the board members um we also included the course report in the um the board package that the board has that that they received so they they have all the information. The superintendent also sent out a memo to the board members to
let them know what the the core vote was so in case they didn't um get the communication beforehand. They got it there and as uh as Mr. reporter mentioned he was at was present at the at the board meeting at which time um
you know anyone the board with a question I'm a supporter on the issues um in addition to that I want just to remind members you also you're appointed by your respective board members and you have the the right and option to have
conversations with your board members to let them know your opinions about things and and um you know Mr. treasure had that opportunity to have the conversation with Mr. Lane who appointed him um and convince him to pull the item from discussion and that I don't know if
conversation took place but obviously Mr. Lane didn't think it was necessary for us to discuss the item further at the board meeting. So there's there's ample opportunity and we we simply we don't you know we have our opinions staff has our opinions about way you know we
wouldn't have bought the item if we didn't think it made sense to do it. Um, you also heard from legal at the last meeting and their opinion about whether you know they're concerned that um, holding that item down would have put us in the district in in jeopardy of a
possible lawsuit. Um, you know, so they the board heard all these things and took that in consideration. So, um, I just want you to know we, you know, none of us none of us always get out our way all the time. You know, we we often, you know, lose arguments here and there. um
in this case uh felt perhaps I guess and I don't want to speak for him and and all the things may have contributed to his decision but um obviously you know he felt like that was maybe that was destroyed both the camel's back in his opinion but Mr. part you asked
specifically what is the relevance of court still today with these these policy changes um and staff they put together just a two slides I think it is just to just to kind of demonstrate what the differences
are in the policies and how things are moving forward and but I will just summarize it all saying that the role of work is still very important but you want to >> I guess I guess I'll just rebuttal to that saying well if it is then you know the board should have at least had
questions or something for us if we're serving at their pleasure. I mean it it has the appearance that's like they we hear it all the time. Oh, they really value Cork and they really listen to what Cork has to say. I mean this brings
that into question. That's all. >> Virginia, >> I I agree with what you said. Um, David, um, what I wanted this to say is there's some way that we can first of all thank
John for for what he's his service, but secondly, I'm going to miss him terribly. He did a thorough research of all of the issues and we relied on him greatly for his input. Is there any way
of trying to reach him to see if he would reconsider We can try, we can ask. I, you know, I got copied on his resignation letter and it seemed pretty firm that, you know, he he felt kind of dismissed a little bit in terms of how the whole thing
transpired and and he named, you know, other incidences where we had kind of a negative opinion and it still went to the board. Um, Michael, >> I want to be sure he knows how much value that we members of Quirk uh felt
he gave to us. >> Well, I would like to delegate you to just go ahead and write up a simple little letter that we can kind of all sign and then mail to John. >> Okay. >> Michael Gelfand.
Um, first if uh that message can be emailed to us, that would be very helpful. I'd like to see what what what was actually said. Um, second, uh, Virginia sort of semi
preempted me here. Um, John has been an extraordinarily valuable member of our team. I mean I've relied upon him and his reports uh because he goes through
uh you know the entire packet and he understands the cost accounting which is not certainly not my expertise um and he has raised issues that have led to significant positive changes.
Um, as part of that, um, I also recognize as one who has not successfully uh, persuaded all everyone around this table to vote with me on my objections that the role of committees is to
recommend and it's up to the uh, supervising body make the final decisions. Um, and you know, I from my clientele, I see a lot of frustration in their organizations when folks sort of
misperceive the differences. Um, and and I don't think that John's action should dissuade us in the least. Um, now with that said, Mr. Chair, if it's not out of order, I would request I would make I am
making a motion that uh board member Lane be urged to reappoint Mr. Chester to court if Mr. Chester is willing to serve again.
>> Second. >> Um okay. I don't know if we need that, but um we have a first and a second. Any discussion on that motion? >> All right, staff pull us, please. >> Alexander,
>> I strongly and urgently support the motion. >> David Porter. >> Yes. Makavville. >> Jim Al. >> No. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Kevin Wilkinson.
>> Yes. >> Lisa Rivz. >> Yes. >> Michael Gilfan. >> Yes. >> Michael Guida. >> Yes. >> Tom Bberger. >> Yes. >> Virginia Ferris. >> Definitely. >> And Christopher Tommpkins.
>> Tomberger. put your hand up. >> So, just so I'm clear, this is a motion to draft a letter to board member Lane to request him to reappoint Mr. Cheshure >> if John's interested. >> And who is going to draft said letter? >> I don't know. I guess I can.
>> Okay. I just want to make sure I >> Tom Burgerer, can you hear us? >> Yes, I can. >> Okay. Your hand is up. You got something? Yes, it is. >> Okay. >> I'd like to I'd like to comment on what we were doing before the vote. >> Okay.
>> The that question that John has asked has crossed my mind several times. Um and the reason for it isn't because somebody disagrees with me or whatever. the question. If I'm understanding correctly the history,
this committee was created because of issues that developed 30 years ago or so. >> 40 >> 40 years ago. >> 86. We're now at the 40th year. >> Ah I didn't realize that was 40 years ago. But anyways, 40 years ago.
>> I had to use a calculator to make sure. I I believe it was in the early 90s that there was a blue ribbon committee appointed because I was served on that under the admiral and then it morphed into the work >> and so what and back and so it was a
court order I think of some sort or whoever but the significance of what we do now has been diminished because certain things just can't be pushed back we have to do we had to do it before it came to
you. Um, we're not really understanding why you think that's important. To some extent, maybe this should be a clarion call to the board or maybe to us about either at least giving us some
understanding and giving it some credence of what we're talking about or disbanding it. That was kind of my thoughts. Your >> hand up again, Tom. >> Mistake. I'm trying to hit mute.
>> So, um, a couple I have a couple of comments related specifically to the issue that was brought up before, not not in as Kulk as a cork as a as a whole. I'll comment on that in a minute. Um, but on that specific issue, both the points of uh Mr. Chesher and the staff were provided to just superintendent.
So, they heard all sides of it. It didn't just hear staff side. All the information was very specific and the superintendent asked Mr. Sanchez questions about it so he understood it as well. Um and then we've also um working with Barbara, we've also implemented um some procedural
differences based on that item by itself. So although that item did go through, we're doing things a little bit different procedurally when we're reviewing our GMPS and our proposals that we weren't doing before that. Um specifically, um we we got rates,
proposed rates from contractors and architects of what their um base rate is with either labor burden or overhead and profit depending on if it's architect or semar and we assumed that that was correct and we had them sign a truth and
negotiation document stating that those are correct and we left it at that. Um John challenged the fact that maybe we should be getting those rates up front with actual either certified payroll or something proving those rates so that we can we can ourselves say that those are correct rates. So we've implemented that
and started asking that from all of our contractors and all of our architects so that we get some kind of documentation for that. We still have a right to go back and audit the books. We wouldn't do that as staff. We have an audit company that would do that. Um but we've implemented some changes to um have
further assurances that we are getting um accurate information. So it wasn't something that was for not and um as Cork as a whole um you know I'll let you guys read the cork policy but there's a lot of items on in the court policy that
um we would love to have more feedback on and bring up items to you but I specifically want to talk about the changes in policy that happened recently. Um, and I will tell you like Mr. Sans said that um, policy as it was finalized and adopted by the board, it
wasn't exactly what had requested. It wasn't how I requested it. It wasn't how um, even the the finance side of things requested. It was kind of a hodgepodge of everybody's ideas merged into one as a compromise. That's the best solution. And we had started down a policy change
um, some time ago and started working on some contract changes and policy changes that we thought were appropriate. Um, >> and then the state statute passed for the >> press mute, please. >> Yes. Can Miss Grace mute herself,
please? Thank you. >> So, when we first started that policy revision, the state passed that 35day um requirement for change orders to be approved, which caught us by surprise. Um, but that drastically changed our approach and our policies. Um, and the
issue being is that this is a, you know, not just a even a statewide, it's a nationwide thing, but the state decided to come in and say that government entities are taking too long to approve change orders. It's not a Palm Beach County thing that they need to approve them in 35 days. So, we had to apply
with that. And the we brainstormed 10 different options of how we do that in order to keep because remember every time we um have an item that's added to FC1 that cork doesn't get to review it ahead of time. The board also doesn't get to review it ahead of time as well. So it's a a two a two-edged sword that
you know we want the board to be able to approve those things but there's not enough time to get things through our board process on a regular basis to meet that 35day requirement. together with that and the fact that our delegated authority limits were set you know 15 years ago and cost construction have
escalated three times from that we thought it was appropriate to increase those levels. Um what that does is it just means more items are on the FC1 um item versus the FC2 through five or whatever we have in the past. So, um, by
doing that, that allows us to streamline our change order process and process down, but it's a lot of accountability on the construction side because we're approving things that haven't gone through the board and cork and we do get valuable input when we do bring things
through court. So, um, we, you know, there's still, there's still honestly a gap there. Um, if we have a change order that's $21,000 that we get tomorrow on our new contracts, um, we have 35 days to approve that. That exceeds all delegated authority. So, we had to come
up with that pre-approval process to try to get those ahead of time because most of the time when you have a $200,000 change order or more, um, you know about it ahead of time. Um, not always, but most of the time you know about ahead of time that we can get pre-approvals. And um so I I just outlined on that slide
one um the the the previous and the current delegated authority levels. And the big one that you see there is the superintendent from 100,000 to 200,000. But in doing so, we've also reduced the um uh field reps and um SPA's delegated authority to
zero. So in the past um before this policy changed an S spa a project manager was able to approve up to 25,000 I think it was by themselves without any oversight and we didn't like the idea of one person individually doing that without consulting of a group. So we
implemented, we recommended implementing everything has to go to at least the department manager even if it's 50 bucks. Um so that at least there's two different people with different hierarchies looking at that because everybody, you know, if you've ever run a project, you get in the weeds on a project and it's so overwhelming there's
a lot of work to do that sometimes you don't see the the force as the the saying goes, right? So we wanted to make sure that was in place. So so there it wasn't just one-sided um run up everybody's delegate authority. there was some a lot of thought that went into it to putting controls in place. We
worked with um Holly's office, we worked with purchasing, we worked with Treasury um Mr. Sanchez's office to come up with a um a package that wasn't 100% agreeable to anybody like I said, but at least accommodating to everybody. Um so the, you know, with those cumulative
limits, I think that's why we did it. But the court's input on even the FC1 items, it's never been an approval. The board doesn't approve FC1 either. it's just receiving a report because those are all delegated. So even in that there's been many of times where we've
have FC1 items that have brought back um things that we've implemented into procedures um things that we didn't think to check before um comments that we can do as lessons learned that we roll out to staff. So there's definitely tremendous value in at least looking at those as well as um when we look at
where we were, you know, number of years back of what we presented as an explanation for an item that's a change order. It was very basic and you couldn't tell what was going on. But because of course feedbacks, even our three or four lined explanation has a
lot of detail so that a layman or somebody not familiar with the product can read that and at least understand what it's about. So that's been a tremendous value to what we do as an operational side. Um and you want you don't mind going to the next slide. Um all the other items uh haven't really
changed a whole lot from what we do other than the FC1 and that's again driven just by the delegated authority. But um the FC all the other FC items are are basically going the same way they were with the one exception of the pre-approvals and in this case
authority in this has actually increased. So, I'll give you an example that we had a um you know, halfway through the Garcia um uh high school project, the district decided to do a turf project and we were on the go and we were going to affect the critical path. We did it, went forward and
brought it to Cork after the fact because we were under the gun. Um that's not allowed in in this current policy the way it's written. And what would have happened then is we would have taken a pre-approval to Cork and the board saying, "Hey, we're going to have a change order. It's going to be about a million dollars. What does Cork think?" And that would have went to the board.
your recommendation. So in those cases, you're going to have a lot more input of those large dollar change orders recommendations to the board. Obviously, Cork still doesn't make the final um uh vote yes or no, but their recommendations are carried to board and the board does hold your val your weight
very high in that. So those large changers again are going to get more oversight in a a better timing so that when they do come through everybody's at least in agreement or maybe not full agreement but at least the voting has happened that everybody understand what it's about. So um even on so on those
FC2 items we've gotten great comments on our GMPS even recently um some of our um purchasing items and all of those um we take with um with heart to try to improve what we've done. And I think over I know since the three or so years
I've been here, there's been tremendous improvements of what I've done and what my staff has done in the quality of the work and we're still going to miss things, but having the um myriad of opinions that we do with the different expertise is very valuable in my eyes.
So that's that's my two cents on Cork. Um and and again, if there's any questions about it, I'd be happy to answer it, but I I know as a I don't speak for just myself, but our our group definitely values the opinions that we get here. Well, it really seems like nothing has
changed policy-wise for Cork. The only thing that's changed is the delegated authority limits. >> That's the main thing. Yes. >> And with FC1, as it's been told to me and you guys, we never vote on that anyway because it's already approved
items under the policy and the board doesn't vote on it. So, we can have comments about it and that would be lessons learned. Um but it's already kind of water under the bridge and you know it's really for lessons learned >> and the one thing we also did in the we
also implemented a cumulative per project limit. So any project under 7 and a half million we've capped it at 500,000 and over that we've capped at a million dollars as an extra level of assurance that I know that these items are brought to court every month. So if
we start seeing a bunch of chambers on one project, you'd be able to say something. But just in an effort that we we don't have too much authority from a staff standpoint that we're limited there. And we thought that was a reasonable and that was we also consulted with our um CRI our consultant. They recommended that
approach as well for a um an extra assurance that we don't have too many change orders. Um because we all recognize that there are things that come up in a project no matter how well your design is um that you want to change um for whatever reason whether it's security or or otherwise and it
makes so much more sense to change it than to do after while you're not in construction. So um we're never going to eliminate changers. We're constantly making strides in our plan reviews and things like that to reduce them and I think we've made good strides but we're never going to completely eliminate
change orders. >> Virginia I I think it's too bad that um John C couldn't hear all of this information. So my question is is is um are these charts going to be attached to
um our or where we can review these these slides you just showed us. Are you going to attach these to our agenda? Sometimes you do. >> It's not new information though. >> It's not new information. It's just summarized though from >> I'd like the summary and and I think it
would be very very helpful in responding to John >> Michael >> can so the answer is yes you can put these slides >> I believe so share that with >> yeah of course
>> public knowledge yeah >> so as as we're discussing the change order particularly um you It gets back to many times preparing for a meeting of what is why am I spending so much time on what is a
relatively minuscule sum of money. And I think a review is valuable because what I'm looking at are potential systemic issues um and what can be you know fixed for the next time around. um in particular
and you know I do recall and thank for the explanation and you know so much of this is pushed by the legislature which you know does not always understand why things occur on the ground. the district does have a
lobbyist and I've got a feeling that particularly in Broward where they're putting together or were supposedly an equivalent court and I thought that Dade had too after their Johnny Jones times um whether it behooves the district to
place on its legislative list a request to the legislature to change the change order policy because what it affects effectively has done is that it's removed uh citizen oversight
to the process and it doing so it it is counter to the policy of ensuring that public dollars are spent the way that they should and potentially then you know working with the other districts to have
a an an amendment to that 35 5day limitation. I do realize that's probably an uphill battle considering or knowing who was pushing that, but this is an important process. Uh, you know, if if
the districts think that these oversight committees are important and we're being kneecapped because of the approval provisions, um, then speak up even if it's a futile effort. Thank you. And I just want to be clear that we're
we're not opposed to processing change orders as fast as possible and getting contractors paid. We want that as well. Just 35 days is so tight with our board policy. I'm going to just take a guess, but if it was something like 60 days, we can condense our processes down to still meet with court and the board and have
that same level of oversight and still pay chambers within 60 days, right? So it's not there doesn't have to be a lot of give there to follow the processes a little bit better but with 35 days it just wasn't we can do one in 35 days if we hit it just right um but you can't consistently do that you know so
>> Mike way >> um I just wanted to make a another recommendation piggybacking on Virginiaian Ferris's uh recommendation of giving Mr. Cheshure the uh the the summary of the benefits. Maybe also give
him a link to this video so he could just click on the video and watch watch it as well. Maybe there's a link that I know it's public but maybe have a link on that letter for you, John. >> So I just have a question. Um does cork
as a body do they want to review the draft letter that Mr. Porter is going to uh prepare for Mr. Lane? If I can jump in. No, the last thing we want is a letter drafted by committee. I have perfect fa
faith in our chair. >> Okay. Because then there'll be no discussion about that. I just want to make sure that we're clear that um that the motion today is for you to draft the letter and send it to Mr. Lane. Correct.
>> Sure. And what about copying John Chesher? I guess I could. He's no longer a a member. >> Senator allowable. >> Um I mean you can copy I guess whoever
you'd want on it. Um, I would just caution all of the the cork members here that there is to be no, you know, under under sunshine, um, you're not able to really have any any input with any other cork members, um, or, you know,
including Mr. Porter about what you want addressed in the letter, what things, you know, now we're doing it at an open and publicly noticed uh, meeting, so that's perfectly acceptable. I just wanted to make sure I understood that if he was going to draft a letter and then at the next court meeting, you all would
have the opportunity to discuss and and have some input. But apparently that's not the will of Cork. Uh but I just want to caution everybody for sunshine purposes that um you have no discussion amongst yourselves or individual emails about what should or should not be in
this matter. >> Understood. Virginia. >> Um, how does that how does that relate how does that relate to the letter that we talked about first of of uh thanking John telling him how much he was
valuable all the things that he did. I was going to be sending that off to David. So I cannot do that. >> No, you can personally He's no longer a member of Cork. So >> I thought every I thought we were going to all sign on to the letter. So we so I
have to wait till the next meeting. >> I I would say that you know for sunshine purposes if you want to send a letter then you send a letter thanking him for his his time. If you want Cork as a collegial body that has to be brought up by a motion and all that stuff because
one member of Cork does not represent the entire collegial body. You guys act as a body. So you know and as I understood it I thought Mr. reporter. Again, my understanding was that he was like, "Yes, you can send him a letter and say, "Thank you very much." And it
was really going to be more in your personal aspect as opposed to um the body. >> Well, it was stated that that it would be uh sent uh to the members to sign on to. So, you're saying that we could do
that only at the next meeting that I >> You're going to act as a collegial body. That's that's I'm trying to you know that's the >> Virginia Yeah. Virginia I'm sure you can say as you may imagine John the opinion of the board yada yada yada.
>> Okay. and and and since you took the addresses off of the um um the member list, I I need an address and we can treat that as I would recommend staff treat that as a public
records request. Um and then they would provide that information probably. You can also Google his name >> somewhere or another if we have it we'll provide it. >> Oh, he had it on his letter. >> Okay. So, >> right. >> And that's public knowledge the letter.
>> Yeah. >> Record now. Yeah. >> And I believe Mr. Gelfan made a public records request for a copy of that letter. >> Right. Then that's going to come to all of us. Is that correct? >> That will go to if if you would like it as well. But since Mr. Gelfan made he
made the request it would only go to him. >> Well, how do we request that it come to all of us? >> I'm making the request as a member of Cork that that be distributed to the court membership. >> We'll do. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Anything else on that? >> All right. So, if I have questions about this, I cannot ask David. I have to Who do I ask? So, if your question concerns the public records, you more than willing to, you
know, give me a call or send me an email and I'll be more than willing to provide you guidance. I just I always air on the side of caution because what you guys do has to be in the sunshine. So, I that's why I I don't want individuals speaking
with one another, especially now that we have a motion to direct the board chair to send something to um board member Lane. I don't want, you know, other than in the public region we're in now, I don't want somebody emailing David and going, "Hey, guess what? I think we should do this. We should do that."
There is the potential then you are violating sunshine. Well, I I can write a, you know, to John personally, but maybe some of this should be included then in in David's letter uh to the to the board chair how valuable John was,
how, you know, we really would like him back and and if we copy John, he's going to get a lot of that what which I would have put in my letter. >> And and if you would like to have input into what Mr. reporter's letter is, then that would be something that would be
brought up at the next court meeting where he could provide you the copy of his draft letter and then you all could have input. But as I understood the will of you know, Mr. Gelfand was that you were directing Mr. Porter to to draft
the letter. You you didn't feel that they need you needed to, you know, have review it and approve I'm just asking David whether you feel you can include the things we wanted to say that John uh provided to to the board and how
valuable he was in in your letter to the board member. >> Yeah, I can. Or you're very welcome to take it. Uh you know, I got other stuff to do. So you you're very welcome to you're very immersed in this. So go ahead. You take the letter and write it to to Mr.
Lane. Well, I think it should come from the board chair, but um were you going to include to to uh Mr. Lane why we wanted him back? >> Absolutely. Yeah, that would be
>> that's what I'm pointing at. That >> Hey, we just want him back. >> How valuable. Oh, you're just all right. All right. Oh, this this gets cumbersome. Um, David, I trust you to do what you can do and I'll write a personal letter that um
I miss him and can I say other members of the committee express the same is that permissible? >> Nobody's going to throw you in jail. And I really wish, you know, that that he could hear this discussion so he
would understand um that Cork still has some value. Uh we'll probably continue to question whether board members are really listening to us, but um at least these charts I think were very helpful.
Virginia, you can also after this meeting when I believe we get an email from staff when the video is available. I >> think you've done that before, David. >> No. >> And you can also just go to the you the district's YouTube channel. >> It's on the YouTube.
>> It's on the YouTube channel. >> Go to Virginia. >> Go to the YouTube channel, find out the link, and in your personal letter to John, you can give him the link. And if you want to skip through it and give him a timeline of where it starts for the
discussion, you're allowed to do that. >> Um, you mean where on the YouTube channel? >> Yeah. I mean, if it's a, you know, minute 35.2, well then you can tell him that so he doesn't have to listen to the whole meeting. >> Never done that.
>> Start with Michael Gailand. Oh, you're muted. >> Michael, you're muted. >> The uh thought of reliving one of these meetings even by video is as extraordinary as the is is the thought is something maybe to have reflection.
Virginia, I appreciate all your comments. David, I have immense faith in your leadership. Go for it. Don't draft it by committee. Thank you, >> M. Alexander. >> Yeah. the uh the point that that I was
hoping we could make in the letter is that um there was discussion um about John's resignation for about a half hour, actually over a half hour, and that and if it's true that every member
of court voted yes um to for John to be reached out to for reconsideration and urging that he rejoin. I'd like John to know and hope I'm I'm asking that there be um an agreement
that the letter indicate that it was unanimous unanimous um by every member of court that John not only reconsider but in fact rejoin court. Um, I think there's a difference
between a discussion for 40 minutes and knowing that it was unanimous and whatever other adjectives we want to put, you know, urgent um, you know, uh, that that everyone felt extremely strongly about it and it was unanimous.
If that's true, I'm asking that we please reflect that type of terminology, but at a minimum, the word unanimous in any communications with John. Thank you. I thought there was >> there was it was there was a 91 vote.
>> I wasn't quite I didn't quite heard that correctly on that because it was kind of multiple, but I thought it was 91. Yeah. >> Okay. I'm I'm asking for re reconsideration um of whoever it was that was the one to allow us to be able to say uh and I
don't know who it was and don't need. I'm asking if there reconsideration on that so that we have the ability to say unanimous. Thank you. Second. >> Okay. Um let's get the questions out of the way, then we can do it a second time.
>> Yeah. Yes. Um I This goes back to about 20 minutes ago. Um part of the dialogue started with Mr. Chester's frustration that he didn't feel it was being heard and why wasn't this brought up at the board meeting or why weren't there talking points? And I thought the suggestion was that as members, we could
have contacted our board member, like for example, Bruce and I serve it at at the discretion of Miss Branch. We could contact Mrs. Branch on any concerns we had and that would make us feel more heard and then Miss Branch could then as she saw fit make that. But Holly, is
that correct? And I thought if I can't talk to Bruce about what happened outside the scope of this meeting, >> are we allowed to talk to Miss Branch directly about what happened or does that uh not comply? >> Great question. Um you are allowed to
speak to any board member. Um, obviously I think it's probably a more important relationship, the one that you have with the board member that appointed you, but you don't serve on the same board as Miss Branch. And so you are free to contact her with any questions or
concerns you would have regarding any of the items. And you know, another option is that >> she she is on this she is >> Yeah, I'm here. I'm about to open up and go ahead and finish and I'll talk. >> Yeah. And the only other thing I wanted to add is that all of the court members
are also um invited to attend the actual board meeting and can sign up as a speaker um so that their um opinions and ideas are heard at the board meeting as well. So, so to finish off, if John was getting frustrated if we went back in
time, if he wanted to make sure it got pushed, he could he could maybe have contacted the board member and tried to get the board member uh to see his views to make sure that the board member uh would would then in turn bring that up or give it some seriousness. >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Um is that France? >> France. >> Hello everybody. Yes, that's France. And I'm actually I'm the one that had voted no. And I'm going to briefly Oh, can you guys hear me? >> Yes.
>> Okay. I just wanted to say I mean I agree with everybody when they say that uh John was a valuable member of the team, but at the same time, I'm sure he pondered on the idea of resigning for a while and I just wanted to honor that. That's the reason why I voted.
>> Okay. Uh, Miss Branch, >> thank you. Um, yes, you can contact me anytime. You can I was going to say exactly what she just said um a second ago. I can't remember who it was talking. You can sign up to speak. Um,
and I I didn't even I just kept my appoint when I got elected. I kept the appointees that were already there because I knew they were doing a good job. You are valuable. Joe Sanchez is exactly correct and everything that he has said. Um, it may not always go your
way, but 1,000% you can call me anytime, every day, and we can discuss stuff. I have no problem with that at all. >> Hey, thank you, Jim. >> Thank you. Uh David, uh I think I I I'm
not looking at commenting on uh John's resignation, although we're going to miss him, but I think in the spirit of feedback and oversight on trends, which is on the screen right now, um I think that the board was probably wise in
moving ahead the way they did simply because there is such a level of intensity now on timeliness. And I remember when I was uh in my previous place of employment submitting on the project that was under consideration
over a year and a half ago and uh there's a there's an incredible emphasis on timeliness. Now for instance there's a a House bill that um that was I think maybe just defeated or adjusted. Uh,
House Bill 433 amends Florida statute number 489.125. If a licensed contractor gets paid and doesn't pay uh within a certain amount of time, it's now a criminal matter. It's not even civil. I I think I forget whether it was approved or not, but this is the environment that we're dealing
with. And I think that that question of getting that contractor approved to move forward was a year and a half old. So, as far as trends go, just thinking through this as a committee and what
we're seeing now in this whole delegated authority change and and the requirements that we as as a school district move things through in 35 days, that's a trend and it's not going to change. And I think it's important for us as a committee to recognize that
trend. And that that's all I wanted to say. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, was there going to be a motion to revisit the vote or we're Okay. >> Um, well, this is Bruce Alexander again
and I did hear Franc's comment and I guess in my mind there's a distinction between honoring John's decision to resign, but you but letting him know that unanimously we're asking him to reconsider. Um, I don't I don't know that that's disrespectful of of his
decision or dishonorable of his decision, but of course, all I can do now is for the second time ask that um we uh consider uh taking another vote on this and hoping that it does um uh uh
that that it is able to be unanimous. And if we need to modify the motion, the motion would be that that while the court committee honors John's decision to uh withdraw and resign, we are unanimously requesting uh that he
reconsider uh his decision in the context of uh understanding and honoring the uh decision that he's made. So um I'll leave it at that and if there's no second, there's no second. Otherwise, um I'll >> second. the original seconder. I'll
agree to uh the move it change >> and and I want just one reminder that anyone on the winning side of a vote may ask for reconsideration of the vote >> just a little unclear my mind. Are you
writing a letter to >> Cheshure or you lane? Okay. Because the way he described the motion was like you're writing to Cheshure. >> Yes, it's to John Chesher. >> No, but let let us go to to Mr. Lane because Mr. Lane is the only one that can be appointed.
>> Virginia was going to write a personal letter to John and I was tasked with writing a letter to Mr. Lane, the board member who appointed John for him to reconsider, you know, urging John back on the committee. >> Then then it would be the it would be
whichever letter is going to John by Mr. Lane. And I apologize for my misread on that, but it doesn't change my feelings about it. that I do think that whatever communication goes to John that um I if it's appropriate to be able to say that we honor that court members honor his
decision but nonetheless after now nearly one hour of discussion um which I think is important for him to know that that time was taken about this that uh we are unanimously if if we can come to that point if we can come to that point
that we are unanimously requesting respectfully his reconsideration while honoring his decision. Thank you. >> Well, I think for this, it doesn't matter where the letter goes into whom. The idea is we're trying to get court to be unanimous in our opinion.
So, we had a first and we had a second. Any other discussion, questions, comments? >> All right. Staff, call us, please. >> Bruce Alexander. >> Uh, strongly and urgently, yes. David Port. >> Yes. >> Ask Makaboo.
>> What's the motion, if you don't mind me asking? >> The motion is to reconsider the previous motion to see if we will get a unanimous vote to urge Mr. Lane to >> It's on the letter. >> It's on my letter.
>> That's what I thought. Okay. Thank you. >> I'm sorry, staff. Keep going. >> Yes. >> Yes. Kevin Wilkinson, >> yes. >> Lisa Reves, >> yes. >> Michael Gilfan,
>> yes. >> Michael Guida, >> yes. >> Tom Ber, >> yes. >> Virginia Ferris, >> yes. >> That's everyone. >> Okay. Thank you everyone. I think we'll actually move on to the meeting now.
>> Anyone with a conflict of interest today or has been approached by a lobbyist for anything we're reviewing? All right. Hearing none. Any public comments? Silence. All right. Agenda summary. We're down to the consent agenda.
>> Start with FC1. >> Yes. >> All right. I also wanted that. >> And I do too. >> And me too. >> Okay. >> I didn't catch everybody's name, but I hope you did, David. I usually write everybody's name down.
>> And you, Mike, and myself. Okay. >> And >> FC2. >> Yes. >> FC3. >> FC4. >> Yes. Please. >> And And who is this? >> Mike.
>> Thank you. >> Recognize my voice. You're >> very quiet. Michael, you hold it. DC1 EC2 >> EC3
Virginia ready for your motion. >> Move the items forward on consent agenda that were not pulled. >> Need a second. >> Second. >> Okay. comments. Staff, poll, please. >> Bruce Alexander,
>> yes. >> David Porter, >> yes. >> Makaboo, >> yes. >> Jim Al, >> yes. >> Kevin Wilkinson, >> yes. >> Lisa Reves, >> yes. >> Michael Gilfan, >> yes.
>> Michael Guida, >> yes. >> Tom Ber, >> yes. >> Virginia Ferris, >> yes. >> That's everyone. Okay. Michael Gelfan, FC1. Uh, >> first item is page 32, Forest Hill, the parking lot.
>> Um, we've had, I believe, at least two change order issues with reference to parking at Forest Hill. Is this the same lot that we've been dealing with in the past?
>> Um, which item number? I don't have a page 32. It's uh page nine of the change of page 32 of the PDF. >> Oh, I don't >> I think it's item seven you're pulling. >> I'm just looking at the uh the actual
proposed change order. >> I know this is very cumbersome the way we have to refer back to another sheet. I was going to bring that up. Well, if we could use the PEDF numbers, which I guess we can. This is marked
nine of 22. >> So, there's there's several so Forest Hill High School, um there's several different parking lots projects that we have. There was a previous project that we we completed down by the golf course and there was a few change orders that came through in the past for cork for
that project. Um there'll be two different items on on this one. This is to make some minor adjustments. Um so let me back up. Um we were doing a Forest Hill High School FCA project, meaning we're doing a lot of renovation work according to the the blue sheet
data for the referendum work. At the same time, there are some requests. Um, the school has is over capacity. So, there's some requests to look into whether or not we can expand the school and provide more classroom space to increase enrollment. So, what we did was
we did a ma we hired a consultant to do a master plan of the entire site to see um what we can fit on the site. It's a very tight site and the results of the master plan um were that it wasn't really feasible. the the board decided not to go forward with a renovation, but
at the same time that they they were going to make some modifications to the east side parking lot um to allow a different bus route that will increase the stacking on site to get rid of to alleviate some of the traffic concerns. Um in addition to that, we would go
forward with a a project that was on the 2016 referendum to add a parking lot across the street on the far east side um to increase parking. the ma the main um issues on that site are parking. There's not enough parking and the traffic from the drop off um pull backs
up to even the highway. So, these couple things that we're going to do are going to help alleviate some of that. This item in particular is to accommodate the buses um to um be able to make sure that they can make proper turns in and out of the parking lot. >> Yeah. I mean, I'm familiar with the um
layout there. My concern is is the dribbling the drip drip drip of all of these parking lot changes and um why we weren't just presented with them at once because also there becomes an issue as
to a threshold for bidding because you know we're cumulatively cumulatively do do we have any idea as to how much all these parking lot change orders have c are up to now and it's got to be over $100,000.
>> So, keep in mind that most of the previous change orders, we'd have to go look at each one, but I believe all the ones in the past were related to the the separate project for the the golf course parking lot. >> That's an entirely different project that we're working on now.
>> It wasn't wasn't the same contractor. There's two contract multiple contractors, two different projects, >> different designers. >> Different designer. Yeah. just happened to be the state >> put out the same uh markup identifying
what the parking needs were. >> I didn't hear a question. >> They were all part of the master plan. So, um we knew there was a de deficit at the school. That first project that we completed recently on the the far south side increased parking capacity for the
school um a little bit. I think it added, I don't know, 15 30 spots or something like that. >> It's like 80 80 something. >> 80. Okay. Was more than that. Um, so that increased some of the capacity, but it didn't get us to where we really need to be. But that was a standalone project because we can get that done through a
hard bid process to get that work done immediately and get that operational. So, they're using that parking lot. This other parking lot change and the new parking lot, they're not using yet. So, while there's been slightly improvement, it's not there still needs to be worked done at the school. So this change here
is going to allow the bus routing and parent drop offs to change the increased staffing. Then we have a separate change order that will be coming would which is adding back in the parking lot. Is that next month? >> Uh yeah, that's going to be our first pre-approval that the board will see.
>> So you'll see next month there's the change order to add back in the far east parking lot across Parker I believe it is. Um that will further increase the capacity of the school. So, um, yes, there's there's lots of moving parts at the school. Um, it's a complicated
postage side stamp of a a lot. Um, and so there's there's a lot of logistical challenge there, but we're trying to make it all work. And, um, >> that's the other other reason why the other lot across the street to the east couldn't be done at the same time because that had to go through the city approval.
>> It did. And when we did the the master plan, we didn't know all things were on the table. we might not have needed that park parking lot in the east because we're actually considering parking garages and all kinds of different options on site um but that didn't come to be feasible. So um we wanted to make
sure that we master plan the site so that we weren't doing something that we'd have to rip out later. So that's why it's kind been in phases a little bit. Also >> I would like to suggest you kind of show us a 8 and a half by 11 site plan so we can kind of see where this lot and this lot and that lot and the other lot are.
We can add that to the >> the next >> because you guys know it like the back of your hand and we're just, you know, not there. >> Yeah. >> Anything else, Michael? >> Well, yes. Uh, Jupiter High Media
Center. This is page 12 of 22. It's page 35 of the >> It's item 10 on your list. >> Thank you. Is this underlay been there longer than a decade? >> Yeah, it's been there since the school
was built. Um, so I guess Jupiter High was mid 90s maybe, something like that. >> Uh, Jupitter High was rebuilt early 200 >> four maybe. >> Four. >> Wow.
Um, and then uh just looking at the cost uh numbers, does anyone on Cork have any thought? I've got no idea whether those are reasonable numbers or not. >> Yeah, I looked at them. I thought don't like it, but it's what it costs to take care of flooring and especially with
moisture protection. >> Yeah, we >> coatings for moisture protection are just not cheap. There's several different options and while you'll see some different varied costs in moisture moisture protection because there's different levels based on how much moisture is there. >> I'm okay with that. I spent Monday
mediating a case with same type of issues. So >> I didn't have to be educated beforehand. >> Thank you. >> Before you move off this one, are you finished with this one, Michael? >> Correct.
>> All right. I don't hear what year. My question on this was what year was this school built or this media center >> up Jupiter? >> I was looking it up now. >> Yeah, because sometimes media centers
were were separate and I don't know the Jupiter High School situation. >> I think we completely rebuilt that >> media center part of this. >> Yeah, >> it was a complete rebuild. >> Hi, this is Leanne. I know we completely rebuilt it. I borrowed the money for it
in 2000. So, it probably opened in 2003 or four, depending on how quickly the contracts got started. >> So, this floor deteriorated in >> Yeah. And this was underneath the floor, so we couldn't see it. So, yeah.
>> Is is that common that it should deter fast? It will because the moisture that was coming up through the slab that was deteriorating it from the underside which is also then why after they tore it up they had to go back in with a pricey waterproof coating to stop the
moisture from still coming up. >> So that the feeling is that you've corrected the problem in another 20 years. Of course the school may not be there in another 20 years but you you expect at least 20 years out of the floor. The floor didn't fail at when we
removed the floor. The underllayment failed as it came up. So, it wasn't a deterioration from just walking on. It was deterioration from when we tried to remove the existing flooring, the stuff underneath it crumbled and fell away. That was change order one. So, it's it's not something that 20 years of walking
on deteriorated. It's it's when we tried to remove the old flooring, some of the old underllayment, it came up with it and it it was more than what we expected to happen. >> And why were we removing the old floor? So, we have a program um doing all of our high school media centers, upgrading
them, and part of that is increase the flooring. We have life cycle costs of all of our building materials. So, um as they age out to where they start to fail, we replace them before they become a big problem. Um, so, um, we try to to especially in some of the most
high-profile places like the media centers and front offices, and we try to make sure we keep those updated to, um, you know, attract the best students and provide the best learning environment for the students we have. >> So, you're saying that the life expectancy is about 20 25 years of a of
the floor. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Mike Wida, you had pulled this too. Michael Gam, were you done? Uh, no. Meluca, this is 14 of 22, page 37 of the
package. So, on this one, um, the footers were changed solely on this. Is that what it's >> Yeah, that's correct.
>> And why why did it have to why why did we have to change the footers at this point? >> The structural engineer when he was on site realized that the dumpster enclosure did not have a roof structure which would have kind of made it more
structurally sound. So without the roof structure, they realized that they red we did some calculations and made the footers bigger than what were originally proposed. >> And is that going to be something that we'll be seeing in other schools or this
is unique? >> It was unique. Typically they're designed that way. Um it's just when you I guess they assume that they would have a a roof which would provide lateral bracing from the wind but without that it basically your walls act as a canal lever. So, you need some extra larger
footings. Um, it's it's you know, it was a most of the time, you know, they're designed that right from the beginning where you have the proper size footings. >> This probably should have been a >> It actually is. I was going to say the document there you're looking at shows it as a school district request. We we
changed it as a as a design error. >> All right. Um, moving forward to Oyola, which I believe is the next. Before you move off that one, I also questioned that one. Um, if you go back to that, when you talked
about it's associated with revision for ASI3, is that a mandated um requirement? >> That's just a a drawing change. >> Okay. >> And it's just referencing that.
>> Okay. Because it seems kind of expensive just to house a garbage bin. >> Thank you. >> There's gold in them trash. >> What's next? Michael
>> Acyola 15 of 22, page 38. Um, this is the second time in a relatively short period of time that we've had vandalism from district temporary storage.
Yeah, I mean it it is an issue. Um we have a a holding site where we have these portables stored and we've tried over and over again. Um but people cut fences and break in anyway and um it's it's an abandoned facility so there's not a a presence there so it's hard to
keep um people out of it. Um >> all right I'm not going to you know you know the re uh application of resources then um Roosevelt phase 2 elementary
page 17 of 22 page 40. My question here is this is the wind driven rain under presumably under door thresholds uh coming into the interior uh thoroughly understand the need to
address that. My question is uh should not that have been reported as a problem by building maintenance the the school's maintenance or whichever professional was utilizing the
room or utilizing that. Um my my concern is is that water intrusion not being reported? Yeah, I know when we scope a project out, um, we do meet with the maintenance staff and talk about any issues that they have. So, I don't know. Um, we talk
with the school, we talk with maintenance, we talk with, um, other people about, um, what they're experiencing and try to catch everything. This one was was missed for some reason. >> You know, I just request that school maintenance be advised that when they see water coming in that needs to be be
reported. >> Yeah, we leave that up to the schools because maintenance isn't there all the time. Obviously, if the maintenance sees it, they they get it fixed. But, um, the schooler operators are the ones that are there. Um, so we rely on them to put in work orders when they see things. Um, sometimes it happens, sometimes it
doesn't. >> Agree with you exactly, but someone's not reporting when they should, otherwise we wouldn't have to do it. So, that my my statement is, you know, I just would suggest that the school be
advised that's something they need to report. Um, next on Roosevelt, uh, on page 20 of 22, the temporary cooling. Um, as someone who has written up leases
for churches on Sundays and other space and have uh has leased, been involved in leasing for congregations otherwise. Um, is there a reason why we didn't let them know in advance and let them find an
alternative space rather than spending over $10,000 for presumably four Sunday mornings? I mean, that's over $2,500 per service. >> Yeah. I mean, in most Go ahead, David
has his hand up. Okay, >> go ahead. >> Hi. uh I'm the spa on the project. Unfortunately, we didn't find out that the church was going to be occupying the cafeteria until just before we start
getting ready to change out the air handlers. There are two air handlers there. And we did not know until very late in the game that they were even having a presence in the cafeteria. So, we didn't really have time to
uh react with planning for it. We had to respond quickly in order to get those air handlers changed out that summer. >> So, which department would have been responsible to provide advanced notice?
>> Leases are held by the schools themselves. >> The schools, right? The schools write their own leases with the assistance of our um planning and and intergovernmental relations department. Um but we don't have a real good system of of having all these systems talk to
each other in terms of making sure that construction knows what what leases are out there. Um we're looking at provide perhaps purchasing some software that's going to do a better job of us identifying where all these facility uses are. Not just leases but you know
even schools have tournaments and different events and stuff like that and it's not I mean although we we do have that information available in triigger it's not really easily accessible to all the different departments that need to have access to that information >> and I'll just speak on like an SBA like
you know our job when we sit down with like says things like that you All right. for those weekend should go to the district for that. >> We'll take that in consideration. This is, you know, this is a this is a title
one school that doesn't have a whole lot of money, right? So, I'm not sure my argument of taking away their whatever lease rental they got is going to go very far, but we'll we'll have that conversation. >> Yeah. >> Virginia, did you have something now? >> That was that Michael just asked my
question about the rental fee and where does it go? So, thank you. >> Okay. All right. Michael, anything else? >> Thankfully, for all I am done. Thank you. >> Okay, Mike. I miss book and saying that I had an
issue with this. So, I'm going to move it forward for you. Okay. All right. Need a second. >> What is he moving forward? >> This I FC1. >> FC1. >> I'm not finished. >> You didn't have your hand up, so I thought you were done.
>> No, I was just commenting on the ones that were pulled that I also pulled. >> Then continue, please. >> So, is it my turn? >> Yes. >> Oh, all right. Um, on my chart it's number eight, the Forest Hill High
School Media Center. >> Oops, that was early on. These are alphabetical. So, it's Forest Hill High School. The page number is um 10 of 22. >> That's very helpful when you say 10 of 22.
>> Okay. Mike was giving weird page numbers. So I wasn't sure. >> You providing the PDF numbers which help me because I can just go to that PDF page number. >> Yeah. Well, I'm I'm using the other option, the agenda option. All right. On
here listed is um two architect errors and one omission. What are we doing? um to recover some of the the design errors money. >> So, we have a formula districtwide
formula where we add those up per project. Um and if they exceed the the limit on that, then we can go back to the architect and get payment or engineer for those. Um I don't remember the exact calculation off hand. Um but
um we do we do track that and at the end of the project if it if it goes over then we have that option. >> Do we ever see that? >> We have on previous projects sometimes and it's mostly when we ask for it.
>> We could do the we you know it's rare. I don't think we've ever had a situation. Have we ever had a situation? >> I believe Dorothy provides on the close out change order. So when you see a change order to close out a project, she provides an error and omissions log that that goes with every project for us.
>> Dorothy, you want to add something? No, that's pretty much what I was going to say is that we do that calculation at the closeout and if the errors and emissions combined um exceed 1% of the contract value, then we can go after the
architects for either additional services um compliment complimentary or some kind of penalty, but it's calculated in each of the closeout change orders. Thank you.
>> All right. Thank you. The next one is page 16 of 22. >> Palm Beach legs. There we go. Um, I was just very curious about the Zpace laboratory. Is that something unique to this school because of its um um
curriculum or do other media centers have this Zspace laboratory? >> We have a lot of similar spaces around the district even down at middle schools at some places that you know the um STEM is huge in our schools as as choice
programs and as electives and so are um um any kind of technology related spaces. So this was one that was right adjacent to the media center. So, it was right next door. It was in the same area, but it was like you had to go through a door to get to it. Okay. No, we have a lot of these type of spaces around the district. It's it's um a big
push to to have um students educated in these areas. >> It It sounds fantastic. I want to go. >> All right. The next one is um I pulled a Roosevelt. See
We talked about that one already. Um, page 21 of 22. And it's it's almost my same question because it said it's a design error. It's a very small amount to be increased, but um,
>> so it's just a design error. So, it was it was my same question. Um, and you're going and we're going to hear about those you said at the closeout. >> Correct. Yep. >> All right. And then the last one is um Village Academy, the kitchen.
We again had several design errors. It was a request after the fact. Uh, it's quite a bit of money um for a design omission. two design omissions and then a request. So, that's just my comment. I know it's got to go
forward, but um I >> I don't see design omission checked off because I think it was >> Oh, yeah. That's the other thing I pointed out. It should be checked off. >> We should have checked both of them, right? >> Yeah, it's in the narrative. They're out of >> the but check box is not checked yet.
>> Yeah. >> So, that's a miss. So again, it's just that statement that Michael usually makes. We need to find out ahead of time so we don't have to make some of these uh additional costs, the 22,000 to get
these additional things in the kitchen. Thank you. >> Anything else? >> That's it. And I thought somebody else pulled too. Was it Michael Gita? Yes, I did poll Ferris, but I pulled accidentally, so I have no comments. >> Okay,
>> that was a design error. >> FC2, >> I'll move FC1 forward without objection. >> A second way we seconded it. Any other comments, discussion? All right, staff pull us, please.
>> Alexander, >> yes. >> Porter, >> yes. >> Miss Marabu, >> yes. Yes. >> Kevin Wilkinson. >> Yes. >> Lisa Reves. >> Yes. >> Michael Gilan. >> Yes.
>> Michael Guida. >> Yes. >> Tom Burgerer. >> Yes. >> And Virginia Ferris. >> Yes. And I just want to comment that I do appreciate the way this is the format on these now of the writeups on them. I really appreciate that.
>> Hey, did I did you hear me say yes? Because I saw my mic was on. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> And then my other question was, is there a way to to you gave us the the I think you called it spreadsheet first, which lists the numbers of these items, but
then the page numbers don't correspond with the item number. And I guess there's no way for you to put the item number on these, is there? >> Item number is right here on the left column. >> Right. That's why I'm saying I had to print that out separately from because
it doesn't jive with the page numbers >> because that's page two. >> So I can't say page two of the >> of >> Is there a way to bookmark those numbers on the left that will take you right to
the item >> indigent? Maybe not. I don't Yeah, this isn't diligent, but yeah, they just referred to the like two of 22. Then we know where to go to, >> right? But the next page will say three of 22, but it's really item one.
So in calling these up, you prefer if we say three of 22, note >> not the item number. >> That's correct. >> Okay, that that's helpful. Thank you, >> Michael. Go. >> Uh, we're talking about formatting. Um, these items were not a um are not
capable of highlighting. Um, they may not be OCR uh as the other ones are. So, just make that request as they're put together. Otherwise, I I like the format. Thank you.
>> All right. FC2 Mike pulled it. >> You sure you'll pull this one, Mike? >> Yes. All right. Let's see. Page number, let's see, page number four.
>> This is FC2 on FC2, please. >> And the difficulty I've got with that is I'm using the downloaded PDF version and it doesn't have those page numbers. It's just a PDF page number PDF. Yeah.
with this arrow here. No, didn't do it. I don't know. >> That's the third page of the PDF. >> Page 48 of 623. Now, let's go back out.
So, is this on change order five, Mike? Um, uh, the one after it, the first time I saw it, there was a DPO. It says DPO purchase orders was a credit of 900,000. And I don't first time I'm seeing DPO.
I'm not sure what it means. >> Strict purchased order. >> Yeah, it's a direct owner purchase for us. So we we um we save tax money when we order things direct. So we sometimes we take things out of the contract so we can save the tax savings on it if it's a substantial equipment purchase. And this
one was >> but $900,000 were purchased. So that was not taken that scope was not removed. It was just purchased by >> Yes. Correct. a district. So if it was deducted from the from the contract
amount, then where did that money come from to pay for the district? >> So it comes from the project budget. So what what we we're changing our DPO processes right now, but what the way it was done here was that at the beginning of the project, they identified the equipment that they were going to purchase and that was removed from their
purchase order. So they got paid to manage that work, but not to buy the work. They submitted to us. We bought it directly. And that's why it's deducted from their their so um their project but it's it's some from the same funds of our project budget not just added the G
>> I think I've heard it explained before there's the the GMP price and then there's the actual price budget number that you guys allocate. So >> correct >> you had >> we have our design cost and everything else in our project budget. So it's just paid for out of that money >> stands for direct purchase order.
>> Okay. Um that's all I had for that needed clarification. Oh, if you go to page seven um so I like the summary um that you guys are doing afterwards uh because this is
like a project closeout. And my other uh comment is since this is like the last thing we're going to see on this project, how do we know that as builts have been received and changed and submitted to this to the
district for record keeping purposes? >> That's part of our check um that we don't pay the final pay until that's done. So that's where we make sure it's the um the building official and Mr. Sanchez sign off on the final payment application above on our normal staff
signs the other ones. So the building official checks to make sure all that's been received or they won't sign that final payout. So it's not as part this is the close out and then what's this goes to the board and approved then they submit their final payout. So if it's not in place at that point we won't pay it.
>> Dorothy again. >> Yes. Um, so BCS will not issue a certificate of completion until the asbelt drawings are received and approved by BCS. So we don't do a close out until we have that certificate of
completion. >> And um just a couple other things there. So if you notice on page I believe it is six, it has the design and omission summary. That's what we were talking about before on these close out. It lists um design errors on mission not
um and then back to Dorothy's point. Um that's one of the things that um I know that there's some questions about how long it takes projects to close out um and and sometimes it's something as simple as an asbuilt that we're not getting that draws it out. So we don't you know we have our obviously a substantial completion date where we can
start using the facility. Most of these are renovations, so we can use the facility, but in order to close the project, we make sure that everything's received before we do that close out. Um, so sometimes that there's not active construction working on the projects, but we count that as a delay in
construction for the final close out. >> So that's why all those numbers look a little bit inflated for how long they're actually working out there. They weren't working the whole time, but it was part of the project duration. Well, I've done that personally where I've uh had I've maintained asbuilts throughout the project and I've done it that one way
and the other way is at the end of the project and to me it's a whole lot easier to do it in the process of the change and keeping record of it that way during monthly or weekly meetings. Um so I'm not sure if you guys have anything
in place um with your your SB. Yeah, our so our construction managers they keep the markup themselves and at the end of the project once they verify they pass it on to the architects and engineers that update the drawings for the record copy. So that way we don't have two distinct things. So our record copy is
actually hard drawings not just the hand markup. So again that takes a little extra time but it it helps our asbuilt qualities. Okay. So, if it takes two years for a contractor to finally get around to closing the job out, does that mean that they have hundreds of thousands of dollars that they're not
being paid and therefore the subs may not be getting paid? >> No. So, we do we also do retain reduction payout. So, as long as the subcontractor has their work finishes, we'll pay them 95% of their their um their costs and then if they have no
punch list, then they'll pay the f five remaining percentage. So, if we have like a demo guy that's not going to have a punch list, we'll pay him 100%. Um, the one that's only the only one that we really hold to the very end is the construction manager themselves, but we will a lot of times pay out our subs 100% as long as there's no remaining
work. But, we try and we'll do it sometimes a reduction. So, we keep 5%, but if a sub has a couple grand worth of punch list item, we'll reduce that down to two and a half percent so at least they get some of that back and then when they finish the punch list, then we'll pay the rest of it. So we we try to keep them, you know, getting paid.
>> You're not paying the subs directly. You're paying it through the CM. >> To the CM, >> right? But directing it to that sub. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And then they have to submit something to us that they pay the >> sub. Anything else, Michael? >> No, not for that. >> Motion, please.
>> No, I I have a question. >> Sorry, Virginia. Didn't see your hand. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, is this where Darthy said we should be looking for what we're going to collect on design errors and emissions, etc.? >> Yes, that's the that's the form that's
included. >> Okay. Scroll down a little. >> This is what we'll see at the close out on every job. >> Okay. So, the percentage and is there um an amount attached to that?
3,724%. >> So that's what we're getting back. >> We don't get anything back because they didn't go over the 1% >> of GMP that the policy allows. >> I see. Okay. Thank you. >> This is just a double check to make sure whether we have to go after them or not.
>> Okay. So it's the percentage to look at. It has to be over 1%. >> And even for future selection committees, this is good to look at because it shows that the architect did a pretty complete job. All right. Thank you. Move. Move U. What is it? PC FC FC2
>> FC2 forward. >> Second. >> I'll second by Mike Quum. Any other comments or questions? Our staff >> Bruce Alexander. >> Yes. >> David Porter. >> Yes.
>> France Makaboo. >> Yes. >> Jim Ald. >> Yes. Kevin Wilkinson, >> yes. >> Lisa Reves, >> yes. >> Michael Gilfan, >> yes. >> Michael Guida, >> yes. >> Tom Burgerer, >> yes. >> And Virginia Ferris,
>> yes. >> And FC4, Mike. >> All right, go to page six. Find an admission summary. So there's a a value of
whatever that is 30,000 >> 3, right? >> Uh4. >> Oh, I thought we said FC3. Okay, >> you put your name down for FC4. >> Gotcha. All right. You want to go back to >> No. Okay. It's already been approved.
a similar comment here. All right. So then go to page 12. See where on FC4? Go to page 12, please. And I was reading this summary. Uh it was executive um summary from the contractor.
And if you item five talks about some pipes that were uh needed to be replaced or um because the um they couldn't do the cast
inplace uh piping to restore the existing I believe this is chill water piping for the AC system. Uh since the the piping was only inch and a half uh they couldn't do the cast
in pace place piping uh and it just left me at a cliffhanger. I don't know what the result of that problem was if they replaced the inch and a half
chill water piping with new 2inch piping and it so just >> yeah um >> trying to find what the end result was there. >> I don't know if somebody's on that can give you an answer on that. Um but the the reason for this narrative is to explain what the delays were that caused
extra time. not necessarily to give the resolution on every issue, but we can definitely follow up on what that resolution was. >> Okay. And if you go to um page six
says that's a design omission, and I'm not sure if that piping the discovery of uh the existing piping that was too small was a design issue.
a design omission issue talking about the water flow going through the pipe too fast. It can't go too fast to >> Yeah, if it was if it was a design omission error, um there would have been a change order and that would have been
addressed as such. Like Michael said, this explanation here is just trying to explain why it took so much additional time. It's not addressing the actual issues in this change order. It was done in the past.
>> Okay? Because it it says see attached RFI 22 and 60 and I didn't see those attached. >> Okay. And my comment about the uh having the submittals was the same as FC2 to have that
recommendation that's uh be provided as part of the closeout documents. There's a thousand 1334 non-compensible calendar days and then I got comments later on for like three and a half and four years of
closeout time. I mean, how do we how do we fix that? >> So, um there's I don't think there's one thing we can do to fix. I think it's a lot of baby steps, right, to to improve upon that. So, um we have done some things. So, in the the infamous now
contract that we're looking to redo um that we will be bringing back to court there, we put in some measures in that to help alleviate some of this. So, for instance, um we put a time limit on contingency work. So, if they discover something in the field that's should
needs to be done um but is is already part of the scope, they only have 21 days to submit a CCA to us. So, that'll keep things moving. Um, we also have a time limit and an operational change. So that way at the end of every project, um, our architects are going to work
with BCS and construction staff to get a comprehensive review list of what needs to be completed for the project. So instead of saying, hey, you have these comments and then there's some new comments and some new and it keeps dragging on and on, we're going to have, hey, once you do all these things, you're done, right?
>> So that'll help. Um, and then we have a time limit of 90 days in there for them to complete those items once they have those items. So, that's a couple things we're doing. Um, we've made some tremendous progress and we're not there yet on change orders. Um, we have four active people reviewing change orders
before where it was a lot less than that before. So, we had a big backlog that we're getting caught up because a lot of times these, as you see, these change orders come after the way after the fact. So, we're trying to limit that. Um, we also have made a couple changes recently. the testing balance was a
problem in the past. So on the new projects, we're starting to incorporate that into the C scope of work. >> Yeah. Good. >> So that'll help with that issue. Um we're constantly working on the fire alarms are an issue that we're um making some steps to improve. That's caused
some delays, you know, hundreds thousand days delays at times before. Um, we've implemented it like a pre-walk status. So, we have MNO do a pre-walk of the fire alarms before we start construction, like a couple weeks before, and they identify that any
devices that are not functioning at that time are fixed before they get into construction. So, they know once they start construction, that's on the CM. We've also put an allowance into some of our GMPs to fix miscellaneous alarms because a lot of these projects, we're upgrading the panels, but then some of
the devices are non-compatible. So, we're having to update those. So, that allows that to streamline it. We're also um looking at the fire alarms from a different standpoint. Now, recently, um even from four or five years ago, the technology has changed and devices that
were compatible with the old panels are no longer compatible. So, what we're looking at, we're going to probably do more wholesale replacements of fire alarm systems where we have the system up and running and then take down the old system. there's a higher cost, but when you look at the the um overall cost
from it's going to be significantly less than we get something done and have to fix one item, fix one more item, fix one more item, and that goes for years with maintenance trying to catch up and fix all these individual devices that are failing. So, we're pushing more towards full replacements on that. So, those are
some of the things that we're doing that will help. Um none none and that's not going to solve the issue, but that's making some steps. Um, and some of that came from some of the court discussions about some of that stuff. So, that's what we got back to from the beginning that, you know, we take the items to heart and we try to improve upon our
processes to make things better. Um, we still have some work to do on uh, keep in mind this is like one of the older ones. This was, you know, obviously if it's 1300 days old, that's a long time. Um, so there is, you know, anytime we make a change, uh, there's a catch-up
period for all our existing projects that aren't going to reflect that change, but, um, hopefully we're making some progress there on on our closeouts. Um, the other thing we did also, um, from the financial side, you know, within the last few years, we've gotten a lot more robust financial um, um,
oversight on our projects with pays and change orders. So, and Dorothy will be the first one to admit to you when she looks at these really old closeouts, it's kind of a mess of how to reconcile every dollar in the thing where now we're doing it every month and every change order. So, when she gets to the end, the financial part all adds up and
that part's a lot easier. So, again, it takes a while to catch up, but we're making a lot of strides there. >> Well, that's a lot of stuff. >> It is. >> Excellent. Virginia. >> Uh, yes. Since we're on this page, could somebody refresh
me on explaining their zeros in the 100% values and then 10%? Is that the policy that we we only attach 10% value to an emission and an error? >> Correct. So the the omission is
something that would have been there if we would have designed it that way to begin with. So we only assign a 10% value on that. We're in error. We're doing redundant work. So we we have to rip something out or do something over. So in that case, we we assign the 100% value. And I don't remember if it's
contractor policy, but um it's written somewhere that that's what we do. >> Okay. So then you have a total of 3,000 somewhat and then the original and the revise. Is the revise subtracting that 3,262?
Um, Dorothy, did we go by the percentage of the original or the revised contract sum, the final contract sum? >> You know, Michael, I was never sure which one we were supposed to use, so that's why I put both of them in there. >> Okay. >> Um, if we ever get to 1%, then I think we can try to fine-tune and figure out
what we owe, what they owe us. >> Okay. >> Is this >> is this a subtraction from the contract, original contract of 3,262? Yeah, because if you look at the front page, we talk about what money is
returned from the original contract, unused contingency, unused things like that. So that's why there's a difference. So the original GMP was 3.7 and then when we return unused money, it gets 3.56. So >> So the three 3,262
is not configured in the original in the revised contract sum. That's just to show that it was only 0.909%. Is that correct? >> That's correct. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. That's a help. >> But I guess maybe on followup we can review that policy and see what the policy states.
>> I have the policy right here. It says if the combined associated cost of errors and emissions is less than 1% of the construction cost, no cost recovery may be required and staff shall report this information to court and also the purchasing for use of future solicitation selection committees.
>> We're not saying the revised construction cost. So I would think it means the original. I would say the revised because that was the construction amount. >> Well, we can clarify the policy and and I think we were asking where
does the 10% show up in policy. >> It shows in policy, too. >> As I said, I need this refresher. So, thank you. >> Move this to go forward. Okay, that's for FC4. I need a second. >> Second.
>> Second by France. Any discussion? >> Steph polls, please. >> Bruce Alexander, >> yes. >> David Porter, >> yes. >> Makaboo, >> yes. >> Jim Al, >> yes. >> Evan Wilkinson, >> yes.
>> Lisa Rees, >> yes. >> Michael Gilan, >> yes. >> Guido, >> yes. Tomberger. >> Yes. >> Virginia Ferris. >> Yes. >> Okay. FC5. Michael Gelfin.
>> Um on this one, there were a number of questions with the underlying easement issue. Um I sent I know that the attorney that's been handling this is apparently out of town, but it's not
available to answer. So, um, I do have a number of questions beyond that. Also, this is where there's an easement. I'm sorry, this is I'm I got my my items mixed up. My apologies. Um, I think that was it. So,
yeah, this was the easement. So, in the easement, I have some of the same questions that I had with the easement we discussed. I think it was two months ago, and the issues with the survey and the necessity for it. Um, I'm going to ask that this be deferred unless there's
some type of an emergency on this. And I will note that the work cannot begin uh until is undertaken at least according to the justification. Um, the other thing is is that this
shows that we're adding a a year and a half for this, which I didn't understand why it would take so long. Additionally, um, for a canopy, I'm wondering if there's another way of approaching this,
uh, instead of spending $200,000, uh, if there's some other way of providing a foundation and securing a canopy rather than rerouting the entire fire line. >> All right. So, there's a couple things there. So, this work is completed. Um
and there's a you know an assumed easement that would be um coordinated offline. That's the the documents that our legal is working with Wad on to finalize. But this item in particular is just for the cost of the construction work to pay the contractor. So the subs and the contractor did this work. Um so
we're requesting that this move forward to be paid. The easement documents that are listed there are just for reference to kind of give you an idea of where it occurred on site and that there they coordinated that with what as far as where the easement location will be. Um but this is not to record any easements
which we're not going to let the uh comments by Mr. Gelfam go. We're going to follow up on those. Um as he mentioned our our uh legal council that's working on leave right now. So um and we have not heard from what yet. So, um, those will before those get finalized, we'll bring it back a formal
response, but this is just to for the construction work that went into it. >> All right. So, then for the nondocumentation item, I guess the the big threshold question is if we're talking well, is this the standard type of canopy that I
see from school to school that shades presumably playground or tables? So for that um would there not been an alternative solution than putting in a whole new fire line for 200 grand?
>> We we looked at different solutions and this was the the most cost effective, believe it or not. Um that's why it took so much time because we did study every option to get it. There's code requirements requiring the canopies to the classroom. It it wasn't just a want. Um, and the the fire line unfortunately
was was in a place that um wasn't documented. If it was in an existing easement, we would have known about it from the beginning, but it was a public fire line that was on our property that nobody knew about that they uncovered when they did the canopy foundations. Um,
go, you know, going forward it'll be an easement and we everybody will know about it with our adul, but this is just something that they I'll just ask the uh architect construction folks. I mean, does that
sound reasonable? >> Yes. >> All right. Thank you. The next thing is then um the without getting into the legal requirements for the easement, this line only serves
the school, correct? or does it serve anything beyond the school? >> No, all the fire lines are connected. So, um while it it's directly on our property and serves the hydrants for our school, it also connects to the greater um loops of the the city to serve other
people. >> The um let me just get to the survey for one second. >> You're familiar with fire lines. They don't like to do dead ends because if something breaks then the fire line's out where if they do loops they can work on areas and feed it from the other direction. So they're all connected
together. >> So I don't have a page number. Oh, I'm sorry. Page mine is stamped 156 of 623. This is the survey the sketch and description.
And Michael, this is one of the um easements that has been on hold since February, of course. So, >> right there, I think page before wants to know. I guess there it's further out. I'm sorry.
>> After the construction drawings. >> Here we go. So, if you see there the um dashed sort of squiggly snake in the middle with all the arrows coming in, that is described as the easement. So,
this does not connect with anything else. >> It connects with other easements. Um, I'd have to look at the the bigger picture on this one. >> All righty. So, as the
>> that's where our I don't know who's familiar with the Jutter. I know you are a little bit more. That's is that the edge of our property line there? >> I think if you if you look um obviously we'll get on Google map, but just to the north of that line are modulars. They come in from the so just north of that
line would be modulars and then we have the line comes in from the roadway which would be to the east and then goes through and then out I think towards the the road that um loops that school because I think that's another uh um public rightway that it attaches to.
>> If you look at the page 151 of the PDF it's got the site plan that shows the pipe and the dash lines for the easement. So, keep going up. >> All the way to the top of the construction drawing set. Keep going.
Keep going. Uh, right there. >> Let me zoom out. >> Yeah, this is on the U right west side. It shows that it um ends at what looks like a parking lot.
>> Yeah. Right. that that's >> so when this goes back for consideration on the easement issues um you know this just it does appear that this dead ends and I understand yes
the the fire hydrant systems that I've seen always connect >> see this is consistent >> it's ending at a 6-in gate valve >> and it's not ending those those um squiggly lines the tyr is means that it continues beyond This
right here is an existing pipe. It doesn't end right here. It continues. >> Yeah, >> I see. >> This way. >> All right. >> It's tapping into one running north south. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Anything else, Michael?
>> More and more on survey reading. Thank you. No, the rest of it I'll wait until we hear back on on the easements. Thank you. >> You want to make a motion to accept this one? >> Sure. >> Okay. I guess that's his >> I'll second the sure
>> words. We got a second from Virginia. Any other discussion? >> Jeff. >> Bruce Alexander. >> David Porter. >> I'm sorry. Bruce Alexander. >> David Porter. >> Yes.
>> Makable. >> Yes. >> Jim Als. >> Yes. >> Kevin Wilkinson. >> Yes. >> Lisa Reves. Yes. >> Michael Gilan. >> Yes. >> Michael Guida. >> Yes. >> Tomberger. >> Yes.
>> And Virginia Ferris. >> Yes. >> Okay. PC2. Michael Gelfand. >> So, this appears to be a a new parking lot. And the question was, and I think
it might have been Jupiter High. We had a parking lot and they put in uh gates as a security system. It may have been a different school, but the question was, are we doing the same with other schools?
>> Yeah, we have a a handful, not a ton, but we do have a handful of pro uh parking lot projects. This school uh we own the property obviously, but it was just a dirt lot that we used to park on. Um, and if if it's just occasionally used, um, we don't add a parking lot,
but if the school gets to a capacity where we're using it every day, um, then we'd like to to do it right where we pave it, provide lighting, make it safe for everybody. So, this is one that's you constantly, although it's across the street from the school, um, they're constantly using this. So, we're going to pave it and create an actual parking
lot there. >> So, this would be outside of the school's uh, fence or barrier. >> Correct. Sounds like all right that's all >> need a motion to accept PC2
>> sure >> a second >> by France okay any other discussion staff pollish please >> Alexander >> yes >> David Porter >> Makville
Yes. >> Kevin Wilkersonson. >> Yes. >> Lisa Refus. >> Yes. >> Michael Gilan. >> Yes. >> Michael Guido. >> Yes. >> Ber. >> Yes. >> And Virginia Ferris. >> Yes.
>> Just wanted to point out on the actual agenda, it still lists us starting at 9:00 a.m. >> out to Erin this morning and she corrected it, but unfortunately too late than that. But what was it noticed for? Was the meeting noticed for nine this
morning? And we're now >> Okay, we need to just >> It is one. Okay, good. >> Make sure we didn't get through all this now. Illegal meat. >> Start over. >> Oh god. Bring that up now.
>> I just saw it. >> What time What time does it show ending? My uh David >> doesn't have an ending. It just started. >> Oh, okay. We're okay then. >> You're good. usually goes from about two and a half hours max, unless it's extended. >> Yeah.
>> All right. >> It's set till 3:30. >> Okay. Good. All right. >> Your name's not Comey. You're safe. >> Staff updates. >> Well, I just want to thank everybody for accommodating the district with the the
the revised time. I know it's got the routine going, but um we did have a really good groundbreaking ceremony this this morning out in Westlake and we're very excited to get that project going. That's going to open in uh the August of 2027.
>> Well, let me just say that we're we we're all here. We like one o'clock. Don't apologize. I think it's great as a retiree. I'm already tired from the morning's work. >> And thank you, France, for joining us
out there. >> Absolutely. >> Oh, no problem. I had a great time. >> In progress work. >> Okay, so this is our monthly report. Um, scroll down.
That's our slide that we update with our our annual spend. Um we we still haven't quite worked out what it's going to look like when we're combining the uh 2016 referendum with the 204, but we will work that out soon. Um just more information on it. You can keep going.
>> Have we collected any money for the uh new referendum? >> Um Leanne's on the call. I think we got our first payment. Um I believe um >> yes, yes, we did. Um and I I am sorry. They asked for information um for the data through March and it's converting
into multiple documents because we have an old tax and a new tax and I've just wrapped those up this morning. So they didn't get to the facilities team in time to include um today. There is an ISO meeting on May 8th and I'll be sharing all those documents at that
time. Um Cork can always go and watch the ISOCH meetings on YouTube. Um and the documents are online on diligent just the same as Cork will be. But next month and next month's meeting I guess at the end of towards the end of May. Um that slide will be redone. Um
unfortunately I will not be at that meeting. I will be at the budget advisory committee presenting the capital plan. So I I won't be able to be there. Um but Mr. Dolan will be able to explain it to everyone. >> We did collect about $18 million um
>> in March. And you know, as anything that we don't spend right away, um Liam makes sure that we collect um interest on it so it's not just sitting there unused. So there is a benefit to the district. So we spend as quick as we can, but um
things take time. So >> yeah, Mr. Porter, you will see the reports. There was no interest in March because it came in at the very end of March. There was not enough time for us to earn interest on it. >> But we will earn interest starting in we are earning interest in April. Does the
amount we received already deduct what has to go to charter schools? >> No, that's that's the grand total. Um, I've been very busy in the last few weeks getting money out to charters, building new forms for them. Um, it's a little bit of a new world for me because
I'm not used to interacting with charter schools. So, um, lots of work happening behind the scenes right now. So, will we see like the total and then what goes to charter schools or we'll just see what's left? >> Your report is going to show Well, the
report that we're working on is going to be a total view of all the money that the district has available to work on to work with and how much has been spent. It's not going to be just the sales tax. It's going to look at everything. And then the sales tax reports that I give
to ISO, um, I'm happy to share those with Cork. >> That'd be great. >> Okay. >> So, for the original referendum, I think I know we did. We had a list of all the schools and projects that were going to be worked on. >> I don't think we've seen that list that's supposed to go with the new
referendum. >> The new referendum is the new referendum is very different. So, here's me practicing for next week. Um there the there I'm going to we'll we'll use an example of plan maintenance. We're planning to spend somewhere between two to 4% of the replacement value of all of
our schools on plan maintenance. Um whether it actually gets spent or it's just budgeted is is it it budgeted. They don't always spend it every year but it's budgeted that way. Um some of that money is sales tax and some of it is otherw is is with other funding
sources. So if you look at roves right now, the roofs are all funded with sales tax. It may be that they're funded partially with fun with sales tax and partially with local property taxes. So the project list is not school by school
and it's but it is just the sales tax because sales is overseeing the use of the sales tax money, but it was not broken out by school. There's no construction projects, no no new schools being built, no additions, modernizations. it is maintenance,
facility enhancements, technology, school buses, security, it'll be broken out in programs, the type of work that's being done. >> So, it it looks very different. So, um when you see that, um Mr. Porter, it's you'll see it looks very different. The
two reports for this 2016 tax versus the 2026 tax look very different. >> So, how is ISOC going to track that to go, "No, no, no, no. Who can't have that extra money? >> Who can't have the extra money? The >> charter schools.
>> No, no, no. I'm I'm just saying with the current referendum, each school had a budget. And staff would come back to ISOC saying that one's $2 million over. It's inflation. It's this and that. And so that's what ISOCH would accept on
behalf of the public. >> Right. Well, it it is very different when you list look at the materials prepared and given out to the public for the 2004 sales tax and for the 2016 tax. They were project based. There was specific work being done at specific
schools. The 2026 tax did not have that. It said we're going to do roofs and windows and doors, but it did not break it out by school at all. So that we have that um the Roth IM's company doing that district-wide facility assessment. So they go to every
school, spend anywhere from a couple days to a week at the school and give us a detailed list of everything that needs to be done. We're then going to compile that entire list and and prioritize that at what we can afford to do based on um how things aged out, the age of the
equipment, the condition of the equipment. So they've looked at everything in the entire school. So, we'll have a very detailed instead of, you know, the the first time it was like 12 items, this is going to have pages and pages of items, a ton of data um that we'll be able to get really good educated decisions on what work needs to
be done for the schools. >> I think part of what um Mr. Dolan and I and Michael and John, the whole team is trying to struggle with is what information goes to each committee. I think Okay. and and we really need to have a lot of that discussion with staff
first before we bring it to you. But Isoc was spent in accordance with the project list, right? >> Where Cork is more focused on is the right work being done at the right schools. It falls in line with the capital plan and some of the things we
really want Cork to be looking at that you haven't been looking at. So, I think that Roth facility condition assessment I'm guessing that and I can't see Michael's face. He may be really unhappy with me saying this. We have had this discussion, but maybe that's something the court needs to look at and see how
we're planning to what we're planning to do. You don't really care which funding source is used. ISOC does. You're looking at very the two committees are looking at very different things. So the reports will be different >> and it it gets a little complicated also because when the referendum was put out
in 2024 is specifically for school. So any money that we're doing at ancillaries is not included in that money. So that's being paid for for millillage. And then it's not just the plan maintenance as Le said it's enhancements. It's all the that we have certain things that we want to do at schools to um provide. So the plan
maintenance is replacing what's there. The enhancements is adding what's not there yet. So, we have a playground that has a little tiny shade on it where we want to add a shade across the entire playground. That's an enhancement. And we have a whole bunch of different programs, 67 of them total of things
that we want to do um over the next 10 years with all the money, not just the sales tax money. So, the report that's widely and I think we're moving toward more of a global report to Cork um where we're not just focused on sales tax, but we're looking at everything we're doing um minor projects, enhancements, um all
all that kind of stuff. Exactly. Exactly. So Cork is going to be seeing more. >> Um Isoc is going to be focused just on the sales tax. Cork really needs to be looking at all the work being done. >> Okay. Continue.
>> All right. These are the uh design awards. Um you can keep scrolling through that and our upcoming GMPS. Um as we go through the you know some of these as we're getting into the GMPS now, this is really the last time we can make summer happen. depending on the
scope of work, but some of this stuff can happen during the school year depending on the scope of work. So, we'll we don't stop working. Um, but we'll we'll keep pushing those through as we get them. Uh, development activities, those this talks about the design RFPs and things that are going on. Um, we have several under
negotiation that we can't really talk about that um we went through. So, keep going. Uh, those are just all of the um large projects. Keep going. keep going. Um, okay. So, these are the
facility renewals that we have ongoing. You can see there's quite a list of those. Um, a lot of those recent GMPS that came through on this list and plus there we're trying to close out some of the other ones. Some of these are finishing up. Um, you see we have a lot of those going on. That's all the 2016
referendum money that we talked about before. All right. Our facility renewals. Um, this is just some pictures to show some of the type of work that we're doing. you know, it's a lot of um behind the-scenes kind of work, but we do get into some of the more impactful things
that people see as well. Uh West RI modernization, this is coming up. We um we're expecting a TCO uh beginning of June. Um it's looking in really good shape, but you see the pictures there. They have the playgrounds in. Um there's
they have the first lift of asphalt, most of the canopies. Um inside they're they're starting to do all the inspections. They have um they've done some above ceiling already, but they're starting to do some of their final inspections. Uh so that's coming along really nice.
And again, this is this is going to be a K2 school, so it's a little bit different model than we've done before. So it's all the little kids. Uh historic Roosevelt Full Service um is moving forward. We're trying to open the two buildings. Um the gym is, as you
know, is a little behind. So, we're working on that. You keep going. We can see the updated aerials on it. Um at the same time, those finger buildings were still designing phase two um in conjunction with the community foundation.
Keep going. A lot of pictures there. See, we're putting in some of the final curbs in on the parking lot there. Um this is u minor projects all the little miscellaneous stuff and this is just a sampling. Um you know we have probably
you know 25 active construction roof projects another 10 in design. I mean we're just doing a ton of work. So this is all under the CCNA contract for minor projects. Uh portables are usually in involved with that. Um a lot of roofing
projects. Um, I think that was some foundations for portables. Um, so, yep, that's the mod project and that was it. Hey, any questions on that work?
Okay, followup. Anything on followup? I didn't see anything. There's nothing on followup. We will >> we'll have to um item number one there I guess we should talk about a little bit um depending on what happens here going forward, but I know Mr. Chesher was was
big on um big proponent on revising the um local preference points. Um it was noted in some past meetings that the the board we've approached them several times and they have not had an appetite to revisit that. Um, but do we do we
want to just kind of let that lay for now or is there is there somebody else that wants to try to convince the board to to do that? Um, >> well, if the board's already said, "Yeah, not interested." I don't think anything we say or present to them is going to change their minds on that. So,
it'd be my opinion that we just let it lie. >> It might frustrate John even more. >> And and as you know, there's there's constant elections. So, as we get new board members, if we want to revisit it in a couple years, maybe there's a different appetite. But, um,
number two, oh, that no, yeah, we talked about that. That's still in the works, right? >> Yeah, the easements. We're going to still keep that on the hold. >> Number three is getting removed. And number four, we talked about >> this is one here. This is the
clarification. There was a question by actually Mr. Wida that um asked about said there were four uh SBEs and listed three that was a tight number there was only three. >> Okay. So only three. All right. So that was clarified.
>> Numbers added up but as far as dollar value or percentage. >> Yes. Good. >> I did. >> Right. Minutes. Anyone with issues on minutes? >> Uh yes of course. Um
the way I read the minutes, we had um 12 members attending the meeting. And if you look at everyone of the votes, they don't add up to 12. Like on page
the second page, um 90. Well, we know that that m that Michael wasn't there. But if we had 12, that would be 11 would be 110. And if you go through the minutes, every
one of these is short two people. >> I think I think there was issues with somebody's microphone during it. >> Yeah, if you remember last month, we had quite a problem with the whole audio portion of the meeting.
Well, then there needs to be an explanation. You can't just leave it that there's 12 people here, but only uh 10 are voting. It's on every one of the the um every one of the motions.
So, I I would suggest that we change to the total number. If somebody if we can't get an audio from somebody, will we just note that they abstained or did not vote or how do you want to >> did not vote like they were out of the room? >> Okay. >> Well, you you have to you have to list
something. Uh you can't really abstain. Um >> you can be out of the room, >> right? That's the only thing that happens. I I think maybe some notice at the top of it that the um motion numbers don't add up because we had microphone
problems >> or I I would just assume that they would be along around with the the motions. So they didn't object. >> When you get the totals, we could easily list on there so and so was out of the room and that'll clarify.
>> But who was it? Was it the two people who were in the room? There were only two in the room and the rest of us were online. >> I meant in the room in terms of >> vote. Yeah, >> we can come up with some terminology.
They were not available to vote or something like that or or you know >> or there were microphone problems. We don't know how they voted. >> Well, but we could get somebody that just you know has to take a phone call or they have to hit the bathroom or something. I I think it's best to say it
was if you're saying it was a microphone issue that that should be what it is. >> Okay, >> Bruce Alexander. >> Virginia just said it. I agree. >> Thank you. >> Is that all Virginia? >> Yes.
>> Otherwise, they were very good. >> Okay. The question I had is I think we had asked last meeting to try to get some feedback from the board members as to whether they were actually reading our three or four page of minutes as opposed to the little onepage report we
used to give them. Um we did it this way to help staff not have to do two reports. But if the board's not reading this because it's just too voluminous, then it's not doing what we need to for the board to understand our actions.
>> I would think they would want us read this. >> Yeah, I know. But they also have a thousand pages of other stuff to read. >> Yeah, but four pages. >> So, he's looking for some feedback from the board members. >> I'll ask to give
>> because he's right. It used to be a one or two page document. Now it can be six or seven pages. >> But we also had um Lou Doctor going to the meetings to talk about it. Again, my feeling is cut the work, do it once, and
um hopefully they would read this. I mean, if you're saying they're not reading it, then it goes back to our earlier discussion as to our relevance. >> Nobody's saying that. require >> yet?
>> No. >> No, I was supposed to do that. >> Okay. Down to the end of the meeting. Anything by anyone else? Bruce Alexander. >> Yeah, I was just going to say on the issue of of whether board members are reading it or not. I mean, that that's not something we can control. I think
that this is a matter of public record. I think the minutes should go in as as they are, and we hope that they will read them. Um, and and so I'm very comfortable with the current format. Thank you. >> Okay. >> So, they're blank. David, you're going
to approve them as uh discussed. >> Yes. >> Approved as modified. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. End of the meeting. Anything else by anyone? >> Yeah, let's meet at one o'clock again.
>> You can tell I'm more awake. >> You retired people. All right. If nothing else, then we are adjourned. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much everyone. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Appreciate you.
>> Bye everyone.