with Mr. Treasure. >> Yes. John Treasure, >> present. >> Yeah, there you go. >> Kevin Wilkinson, >> present. >> Lisa Revs, >> here. >> Michael Gilfan, >> I'm present. And I have to thank Leanne.
After all, she bought the microphone. She's entitled to speak. Tom Burgerer, >> Virginia Ferris >> here, >> and Christopher Tommpkins >> here.
>> Okay, that everybody we miss anybody. Okay, >> only person the only person we don't have from is Tom Burgerer. >> Okay, we'll continue to call him and roll in case he joins us. We'll see if he joins
in. We'll be able to see that. All right. Uh I have nothing to report. Next item as the chairman's report. Um anyone with a conflict of interest today or um have been approached by a lobbyist? Hearing none, we will continue on.
Any changes to the agenda or additions by anyone? All right, the agenda is accepted. Public comments. Any public comments by anyone? Okay. Go to
consent agenda. FC1 found. >> Okay. I also wanted that. >> Virginia. >> Okay. FC2 >> FC31, >> can you mute >> Can you mute yourself? We can hear you.
>> Got it. PC2. >> I'll just put down me. >> Yeah. Well, and PC3. >> All right. PC3. Anyone else? >> Yes. Me, Chaser. >> Okay. >> I didn't catch the names of those
polling. >> MCA pulled PC2. >> PC3. >> And PC3. >> Thank FC3 was pulled by John Chesher and Mike Tweeda. DC1 was pulled by Mike Twa. So we have all except FC2 that was
pulled. >> I move that C2 go forward without objection. >> Second. >> Second by Kevin. >> And any other discussion or questions, comments?
Staff pas, please. David >> Porter. Yes. Makaboo. >> Yes. >> John Chesher, >> yes. >> Kevin Wilkerson, >> yes. >> Lisa Reves,
>> yes. >> Michael Gilfan, >> yes. >> Michael Guuit, >> yes. >> Tomberger. >> Virginia Ferris. >> Yes. >> And Christopher Tommpkins.
>> Yes. Okay. Uh, let's go with FC1 and Michael Gelfan. Start it off, please. Um, >> why don't you go first? I'm logging out with my computer, so I'll just
>> Virginia, go ahead. >> Uh, first I have a question. Is it possible to get rid of the left panel and so that the paper the the document is larger >> or is this new system not able to do
that >> the bookmarks I guess >> no he's possible to just do the left the right panel um we have I think we've been using split screen yes >> well yeah because she's asking about the fact that this is the new diligent
layout so we can see the whole um >> we see the agenda and then you can see the item that you're talking about on the right side. >> Yeah. >> Can you get rid of the left side agenda? >> If we get I think if you get rid of the left side agenda, you won't be able to easily go to the next agenda item.
That's the links to get from one agenda item to another. They may be able to shrink it. I I don't know. We're all learning about the system as we go. >> Okay. Um, my screen is fairly large, so I can read it, but not as good as it used to be.
>> The three top gray ones above the logo is a left arrow that you can close. >> I think the lift is closing. And then you want me like make it go to the side. >> No, it when we click it, nothing happens. >> Or minimize it with the little next
line. >> We got we got to reopen it. I would put that down as a followup for staff to see if >> No, go back up to minimize that like you do with PDF bookmarks. >> And if I may, thank you very much for leading into one of my topics in the
future, but ultimately I was going to say thank you very much for everybody's feedback so far. Please keep the comments coming. Um I we take no staff takes no responsibility for the way it looks right now, but uh we certainly want to get feedback and see if we can
adjust it because there have been some really great calls. Um and if we can get the software to help us, >> we will certainly try to do so. >> That that's much better whatever you did there. Uh okay. I'm I'm I'm concerned
about the parking lot that uh you you did away with. You said it's staff and the public. Um is there a standard uh that you need to follow for how many slots need to be available at a school
for staff and the public? >> There is we have standards that we follow for all schools. Um some a lot of our old elementary schools do have parking challenges when they were built. they weren't built with really quite enough parking. Um, this one's kind of on the borderline. Uh, they make do with
what they have, but it would definitely be nice to have some additional parking. So, that's why it was something that we were able to cut for now. We may come back later and add some parking at some time down the future. Um, our new uh our new elementary schools have more parking than the old ones so that they accommodate for events and things. You
may remember back in the day, Miss Ferris, we had um uh uh the uh well the expansion, I'm throwing a blank on the word where we used to build our schools for like 650 kids and then class classroom size reduction, >> right?
>> That basically added where we ended up adding a lot more portables and breaking rooms down and whatnot and it really messed with our um the core of our facilities. So you'll notice that some of the projects we've had in the past have been core expansions. Those are
actual expansions to address that the shortfall in space. With that comes more staff. And with more staff, the parking was designed for the old schools when they were designed at 630 students, that kind of thing. So we're always making
adjustments now um based on those those things. And as Michael just mentioned, all new schools are being designed according to that um the new standard. >> But what you're doing here is is getting rid of parking. >> We're not we're just not adding parking.
The design of it had parking in it and we're just not doing that as part of the design any longer. So we're the main reason for this project is because of the uh traffic flow at the school. It backs up onto the road and it's been a real problem there. So that was the primary function all along was to fix
that. have two different entrances for drop off and pickup. Um, when we first started this project, we looked at it and said, "Hey, it would be nice to have a little bit extra parking there as well. Um, once we got into the design, the budget expanded because of some of the mitigation credits we had to do."
So, we said, "Okay, we made a decision. Let's cut the parking out, keep it in budget, move forward with the main purpose, which is to um fix the traffic issues at the school." So, we're not adding parking, but we're not taking any away. We're just taking away in the design. And how has the current parking
been working out for the school? Evidently, you felt that they needed additional parking. >> Uh it's it's been a challenge for the academics, for the teachers. They parked in they they have parking spaces in the
bus loop. And so the teachers, a lot of the teachers park in those spots or not a lot, some of the teachers park in those spots. And we have to lock that gate during the day. Those teachers say, "Well, if I had to get up and go to a doctor's appointment or something like that, somebody has to come unlock the
gate." It's a silly concept, but it's certainly a concern. So, what we were initially we were trying to do was alleviate that concern, give them a spot elsewhere. They have a good spot to park that's near their classrooms and they're happy with it. um we were just trying to
make it a little bit better for them and then unfortunately because of the cost uh es escalation we ended up having to eliminate the parking spaces elsewhere. >> Well, someone who visits schools like I do, parking is really a a big issue.
Thank you for your answer. >> Michael Giland. >> So, as a followup on that, do we have sufficient parking? >> Yes. All right. Um, next, my next question
was item number three, uh, and three, four, and five. And I saw the response, but I I need to hear from someone on cork as to whether these, uh, expenses are appropriate for the work that was done. I I have no basis. I'm not a buyer
of these things. Um, you know, all I see is, you know, uh, retail, which doesn't, I understand, doesn't work. So, someone on core corner, help me and chime in. >> These are ones for the GFI outlets. Three, four,
>> GFI. And then we have the door, six door closers for $3,700. Uh, four sinks for almost $9,000. This is three, four, and five. >> Yeah, the GFIs seem a bit excessive for
19 GFIs. So, if you could probably clarification >> just buying them, but $1,000 a pop is a little high, but maybe 800 is I think that's what that's about the a good reasonable
number uh for that cost. But each outlet was already wired. So all these had to be with a receptacle popped out and a GFI put in. That's probably if it's a half hour for an electrician. That's a long time. >> Well, did they have to remove the GFI
breaker as and put a regular breaker in there too? >> If there's a question and we can dig bring you back um more information on the details of that cost estimate on that one. >> I appreciate that. Thank you for pulling that one. Well, hold on. We have somebody that can explain it now.
>> Problem that we encountered was these after we started construction, we discovered that there were loads sharing common ground. And so we, you know, the cost, you know,
I I think it came out to like $6 or $700 a unit. Uh, you know, there's demolition work. they they had to go in and identify, you know, they had to go in and identify where those common uh what was sharing the common ground. And so
there was a lot of labor involved. So it's not just excuse me the material there was a lot of labor in the discovery of the problems. So that kind of how it cost but I I think it costed out at like seven or
$800 a unit which isn't too bad. Okay. So, they did they rewire anything? Did they have to pull another dedicated ground? >> They did not. Uh this eliminated the need to do that. This was our lowest cost option. Um for me in uh in getting
involved with it, you know, it was a life safety issue. So, we looked for the lowest cost option we could get. Um I I would 100 times I would do it a 100 times uh this approach because it was a
lowest cost option given my circumstance. >> And Michael Gelfan on the closers I think that's appropriate for the number. I didn't question that. >> All right. And and the same for the sinks. >> The sinks, it depends on what kind of sinks they are and what kind of plumbing
had to be done. It's not just the cost of a sink. I wouldn't assume it's right. >> Was it cutting into a cabinet and installing the sink and faucet and providing water to an area that didn't have water and sanitary before >> room sink? So, it's not the traditional,
>> right? It probably might even be a cast iron stick. >> Well, maybe it's follow just provide a little bit more backup for for the work scope that was necessary. >> Good point. Absolutely. Is is is Joel on? Joel was the spa.
I saw some pictures of this. It was quite unusual. I've never seen the plumbing that was existing that they had >> do that as a followup. >> Anything else, Michael? Because I had something on this. >> Yeah. Um number five, the 55 uh or the
45% charge for restocking. I understand restocking expenses of 10 15% sometimes I seem a little bit higher >> number eight I think you Michael >> correct number eight >> you said number five sorry
>> I'm sorry apologies number eight uh but a 45% restocking fee seems to be excessive >> I guess it's whatever restocking fee the supplier wants to charge so they don't have to give us anything >> yeah they they could say no it's yours
you bought it not getting anything back >> and if you that's why it's a design error because we had to pay extra money for the same thing. So we do note that >> it's being noted as an error Michael so that will at least be documented that shouldn't have been our cost.
>> All righty. Um with uh number 10, um did we pay for those directly or was that through a vendor or supplier? >> For 10 is about canopy um renovation and
repair for whispering pines. So the tariff increase for the aluminum decking, >> right? >> Yeah. The canopy suppliers paid that and then we paid them. >> All righty. So, we're entitled to obtain a refund for the tariff at this point.
Not at this point, but it was a Supreme Court decision. So, we're entitled to that not only on this one, but on all of our other projects that we have tariff inputs. Um,
>> how many of the suppliers >> we need to get I I would suggest that we need to get geared up and work with our vendors, suppliers as to how that's going to be coming back. Not necessarily that we have a full game plan right now, but that we have the ability and we're
ready to go uh once the process is in place and we document it as necessary so that we aren't so because we haven't given them notice now. Virginia. >> Yes. I had a question on this one also
whether we're tracking tariff on all the other purchases. This is the first one I've seen. >> Yeah. I mean that's down the line of what we would do. Honestly, if we need to go back and try to recoup that, that's so far out of
our um wheelhouse. we'd have to hire somebody to go do that and and figure out how to do that. So, >> but yes, to Miss Ferris's question, I believe, guys, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is the first round of that we've actually seen with tariffs.
>> We've had we've had several, not many, but we had a few recently. Yeah, recently. >> That's what I mean. We're This is the first round, not these, not these items, but this this time frame. It's the first time frame where we're actually seeing tariffs impacting us. If if we know
about them, why can't we just start tracking them and as to what project and what cost and make our CNS tell us specifically when they're giving us a charge that includes a tariff like we did? >> My question back to Mr. Gelfan, what
what's the state statute that you're referencing or how is this >> he said Supreme Court decision? >> Supreme Court. United States Supreme Court has declared that the tariffs were illegal and the uh government had
already stipulated that they would be undertaking refunds before this got to that point. >> So there was going to be a process for a refund and listening to the discussion at least at this point um initially this
falls into two separate categories. uh one is the easy ones such as these where we have the vendor ex you know uh not just explicitly but in a manner that brings it to our attention.
Second, there are tariff claims that are built into the prices and where the vendor supplier presumably, especially if they are a supplier on a on any decent basis, they're going to be applying for refunds
of those tariffs and those should then be passed on to us, especially if there was a cost escalation provision that was triggered by that. And what I am
strongly suggesting is that we start now to identify these in one avenue. And second, instead of just waiting to see what may happen well down the line where we may be out because of the passage of
time, uh that we undertake a consultation now to determine what is necessary to preserve these claims because you know this one just pops up at $7500. Um definitely not chump change. Uh but
presumably there are going to be larger ones and cumulatively we're probably going to see a whole slew of relatively high number tariff charges that we're entitled to a refund.
>> All right. U Mr. Gelf fan duly noted and um yes we will work with the general counsel's office um because as Michael said it's it's a little bit above us at this point and that we really don't know exactly what direction what path what
manner in which we might be able to get uh recovery. So, we will certainly uh reach back with the general counsel's office and make sure that we're moving in that direction. >> And I I would anticipate that this is a highly specialized area where it's going
to be worth consulting with uh outside counsel anticipating that we don't have that expertise in house to provide direction at least upfront just a suggestion on that part. >> Appreciate it.
>> Mr. Robinson. >> Yeah, I just following up on Michael's. I think most of the accounting information is uh in tears below you guys. So, obviously the accounting information is a general contractor subs under them, suppliers under them. One
way to do it is to make a request to all the people that do business with the district from the date the tariffs issued forward and put kind of a quasi burden on them to provide the district with because you can't do it with your record. You have to do it with records
of the general contract and subcontractors. >> And Mr. Wilkinson, thank you very much because that's one of the challenges is right now we're looking at these particular items are ones where the contractor is coming to us and saying we're about to buy material and we're
going to be hit by a tariff. We don't know that some of the items that we may buy in the future already have the tariffs accounted for in the original quote if they've been returned or if there's still a continuing uh discussion
with the uh Supreme Court and all that legal stuff. Sorry. Sorry, Holly. But uh we're we're going to let that stuff um sort itself out through with our we'll work with legal on that. Again, I don't I don't want to speculate exactly how we'll go about each of the
each of the different scenarios. Um, but we certainly will keep this on the forefront of our our our attempts to get recovery. >> Two followups and thank you Mr. Wilkinson. Excellent point. um on the go back to the vendor supplier, you know,
may help to point out that we would be expecting that they're going to be applying for a refund because of their costs and that they have much more to recoup than than we're going to on number 10 particularly. Um is this a
request for a tariff paid or is this anticipation of paying a tariff in the future? This is a tariff paid. >> All right. Thank you >> on this one. >> Michael, anything else?
>> Um, yes. On number 14, Omni. Um, I saw the followup on this and my question is is or if the alarm was working before the work occurred. I understand, you know, many times in
renovations, you're moving a wall, uh things get disconnected, uh devices are damaged, but um would that not have been a responsibility of the contractor to protect the system during the renovation
process? >> So, Michael, the way I read this, it it passed and was certified and everything was working and then it wasn't. >> Yeah. with with these projects, it's kind of a tough situation. Um, we have money to replace the fire alarms, but not the whole system, the panel, but not
the whole system. So, we've approached it a couple different ways. Um, sometimes we go in there, we have the vendor try to figure out if the if the devices are going to be compatible, but a lot of that has to get into the programming of if they are going to work or not. Sometimes you don't know. So,
the fun the system is fully functioning. We go in there, replace the panel, and then some of those old devices don't work with the new panel. we have to fix those because the building department won't certify the system unless there's no fault in the fire alarm system. So sometimes we go to MNO, our maintenance division, and they fix those items.
Sometimes we have the contractor fix those items because they're already there. So we pay for it one way or the other. In our new projects, what we're doing is providing an allowance in there for the contractor to take care of so it's it's accounted for here. But we're this is something that we've run into recently and we're trying to fix that
approach. But it, you know, we're going to have some of these that we can't operate the school without it functioning 100%. So, >> Wilson, >> uh, yeah, and Holly Holly, I just want to address this to you in a way. Um,
there's possibility that a GC on top of I'm going back to the tariff part just to finish these dialogue, but there's a possibility that GC working under us could be applying for refunds because they're on top of their game with their figures and so on. Is there anything in
our contracts like a rebate provision that would require them to then remit the any tariff rebates that they got upstream? >> Um, unfortunately at this point I don't know. I would have to review the contract. So I I that's a great um issue
for me to look into. Um I don't know. Um I know that we've explored this issue on the goods and services side u where we did have provision saying that if you're requesting a change in your pricing due to tariffs, you had to indicate to that that to us. And on the goods and
services side um we had no vendors um make any applications. So, um I will certainly review that in our uh contracts to see if there's some type of provision in there requiring the CM to remit tariffs to us. You know, most of
these contracts were drafted without even the thought of tariffs. Um so, I will I will review it. Um and thank you very much for the area of inquiry. I'm I'm positive that the the word tariff probably doesn't occur, but probably rebate does, refund does, and maybe
under that kind of language, you could have an obligation on a GC to whatever they receive in a refund, even though the word tariff doesn't appear in a legal document, it is a refund. Uh, and that language might help. But thank you, Holly. >> Thank you,
>> Michael Gelfam. Were you done with FC1? >> I think I've used up as many words as people want to hear. Thank you, sir. >> I I had one item. Staff, can you pull up the responses uh letter that you had sent back to us all?
>> Tab over there. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Go back. >> We're already there. Okay. But it's in diligent. >> We Is the Q&A back in diligent, too? >> Oh, yeah, that's right. Oh, >> is it?
>> I believe it's in followup, isn't it? Maybe I'm wrong. >> It got added to the agenda, then it's on diligent already. >> Meeting agenda. >> Oh, just the followup is I'm sorry. >> Oh, the followup, but I'll just any anyway. >> I'll get I'll get to it. Okay, almost
there. Get to the right. >> Please bear with us online. searching for a document. >> I have it if you want to let me share. >> Oh, we got it. >> Got it. >> Be in your
Q&A for It's right there. Inquirers and responses. >> You go down to page three. It's under item 10. right there. Down a little bit. I want down a little bit. >> No, that's the >> right there. Item one. Um I think item
one. >> Yeah. I my question is we have a clause 3.1.1 that's noted there that was excerpted that um contractor has to basically
incorporate um products made in the US for iron and uh steel. >> Why don't we make that all products? Well, I think it's a a matter of once we start saying that, our costs could escalate exponentially. Um, so when
there's state mayonnaise or whatever, we put that language in there, but we don't want to limit the suppliers of where they can get because there's no way for us to track that either. It gets very difficult. So, we want them to get the best products that meet all the codes and standards at the best cost.
>> Okay. I'm just wondering why we only want iron and steel from the US and not aluminum or >> that was handed down. It was it was a Florida statute requirement I want to say two or three years ago. >> Yeah. >> So the legislature >> that it wasn't we put in there. Okay. Never mind. Virginia.
>> Yeah. I had a question about that also. It said that the the construction manager must notify the school board prior to the purchase. Is what we're looking at today the notification
or is it the go ahead? I think this is already been paid. >> When did the notification come? According to, if I'm reading this correctly, it said that the school board had to be notified prior to the purchase.
>> Yeah, that's when they submitted their what's called a PCO, a proposed change order to us. We'd have to look up the dates on that, but they notify us, hey, there's a a change coming. We review it, approve it, and now we're just reporting it back to Cork. >> Was any of was the change that they
noted to be for non US products that were going to cost more? >> Why are we given this 3.1.1 clause if that's not what we're talking about? >> 3.1.1 I believe was to address the question about the US Steel and why we
don't. >> Okay. So it really was irrelevant to this being a separate change order for piping work >> or aluminum canopy. Okay. >> So when we looked at the change order,
we saw that there was a tariff. I don't recall that. >> I don't think this has does this have to do with tariffs. >> This is so this item is the tariff item, but the item is relating to aluminum. I think the question was was there no US aluminum? And then the answer is we only
dictate that they have US-made steel. >> Steel and iron. >> Okay. So, so this doesn't increase the cost or of steel nor does it nor does it uh um is a foreign steel product that we're buying that they would have to notify us for. It's just referencing that only the only thing we mandate they
buy USmade is steels. >> I see. >> Okay. Anything else on FC1? Anyone else? >> Need a motion? >> Move to go forward without objection. Second >> second by France.
Any other comments or questions? I staff poll us please. >> David Porter. >> Yes. >> Moo. >> Yes. >> John Cheshure. >> Yes. >> Kevin Wilkinson. >> Yes. >> Lisa Res.
>> Yes. Michael Gilan. >> Yes. >> Michael Guida. >> Yes. >> Tom Burger. Virginia. have to abstain because I just got here and I didn't hear the discussion. >> Okay. Thank you, Tom. >> Thanks. >> Virginia Ferris. >> Yes.
>> And Christopher Tommpkins. >> Mr. Tomkins here on >> Is he muted? >> Maybe he stepped down. He was absent for the vote. We'll keep moving on. Uh FC3, Michael Gelfant.
So, um this is another renovation and we've been through uh historically problems with facades uh whether it's been brick stuckco or otherwise and I'm I saw the response
that came back from staff and I appreciate the fast turnaround but on a structure that's this old I don't understand why we didn't take a Look at the at the stucco before moving forward.
>> It's hard to see the stucco, Michael, when it's painted. >> Yeah, it was covered in lead paint. Um, so the lead paint abatement revealed that the Stuckco was that bad. We We couldn't see it from anywhere in the structure. Um, and honestly, you know,
we don't often have lead paint on the outside of a building. Wasn't used that often, so we had no idea. Um I I I honestly thought it would come off a lot cleaner than that, but it didn't. It came off and the stucco wasn't adequate at all. So we basically had to float the entire stucco the structure um with new
stucco so it's watertight. >> Was the problem because the removal process uh impacted or was it because the stuckco itself the rem, but we looked into that. It's kind of
like when you pull up tile in your house. Sometimes it pops up really easy and it's very clean and other times when you take it off it's just a mess and brings up half the stuckle with it. Um, not to mention that Stuckco itself was however many years old and kind of at its end of its lifespan anyway. So I
think that really contributed to not holding together well. >> And that was most likely just lime stucco without even any cement in it because it's old. Yeah. >> And they don't do three coats back then. It's just slap it on. I didn't pull this because I knew after
trying to chip and scrape and get paint on that was not wanting to come off that there was going to be subsurface damage >> and we had no choice but to get all of it out of there because they have to bag it and dispose of it properly because of the lead content. Yeah.
>> Thank you, >> Michael. If nothing else on this one, you pulled it. Go ahead and make a motion. >> I'll let someone else make it. Thank you. Need a motion on FC3. >> Go forward without objection. >> Second. >> Second by Kevin. Any other comments or discussion?
>> Staff persist, please. >> Kevin Porter. >> Yes. >> Moo. >> John Teser. >> Yes. >> Kevin Wilkinson. >> Yes. >> Lisa Reves. >> Yes. >> Michael Gilan. >> Yes.
>> Michael Guida. >> Yes. >> Tom Burgerer. >> Yes. Virginia Ferris. >> Yes. >> Christopher Tommpkins. >> Christopher Tommpkins. >> He was there. >> He needs to stay part of the meeting
here. >> Okay, let's move on. PC1 Michaela. >> I go to page six on first PC1 document. A uh Holly Han kind of um did
a great job in sorting out the companies and kind of summarizing them on different dates. Um but these these letters that are here uh state that there's no additional litigations that were found. Um
but then in the subsequent in the in the B documents I see there's litigation. So deter can you clarify between no additional or >> absolutely. So the policy for pre-qualification requires that contractors disclose their litigation.
So what I'm looking for is I'm looking for litigation that is not disclosed in their application. So that's because the applica the policy says if you're going to apply you have to you have to provide all of your litigation. So as long as they disclose it. So, like, you know,
when I look in and again, my my review is somewhat limited. Um, but when I look at like a Palm Beach County, if they've already disclosed that they have a lawsuit in Palm Beach County and then when I review Palm Beach County, I see that that lawsuit that they said they had is there, that's consistent with the
policy and that aligns with the policy. If there's another lawsuit and it fits the category has to be construction related. So, for example, if I see a lawsuit and it relates to employment >> under our policy, that's not something that the the applicant would be required
to disclose. But so, if I go in and I see that a company, while they've disclosed one lawsuit in Palm Beach County, but they have another a construction defect lawsuit in Palm Beach County um that was filed two years ago, and if they didn't disclose that, then they would not be in compliance
with the policy. But, so that's >> is it just Palm Beach County? >> No, I look in Palm Beach County. Miami Dade and Broward. And then I look in federal. So a lot of your bigger lawsuits are going to be in federal court because of the, you know, because of the the dollar amount involved. And
then, you know, historically what I found is if they are a Miami company, if they're, you know, doing a lot of work in Miami, there's a lot of construction defect and condo um lawsuits that get filed. So, um, that's what my review consists of, really just trying to find
out if they've disclosed everything to us. >> Yeah, I saw one of the defendants was there was probably a 20 or 30 defendants and one plaintiff. Um, and on page seven is a duplicate of page six. So,
it's for the record. >> She wanted to make sure you really knew about it. >> Um, I think that's all I had. I just needed that clarification. >> I'd make a motion if you want. >> I'll make a motion to move forward. >> Got a motion on PC1. Need a second. >> Second.
>> Second by Virginia. Any comments or questions? Staff publish, please. >> Porter. >> Yes. >> Moo. >> Yes. >> Wilson. >> Yes. >> Lisa Reves. >> Yes.
>> Michael Gilfan. >> Yes. Michael Guita. >> Yes. >> Tom Burgerer. >> Yes. >> Virginia Ferris. >> Yes. >> And Christopher Tomkins. >> You're You're muted, Christopher. >> Give a thumbs up. Thumbs up. Thank you
very much. We got you. We got you. Mais. >> He's muted. He's muted. Mr. Thompson, you're muted if you're trying to talk to us. If in the future, Mr. Tomkins, if you want to do exactly what you're doing now and give me your thumbs up when it comes
time to vote, that that we'll acknowledge that as your consent or thumbs down. Hopefully, we don't have that. Go to page uh 108 in the document, please. >> Yeah, I'm trying to I'm trying to reduce
the size of it. >> I'm tabing through. You can just type in the number. >> Do it over here. >> Yeah, but this is the overall 816 page. >> 175 >> 175. It is individual up there.
>> Which one? >> The 108. And there's a in that subsection there's it talks about the SPE preference um to 5% towards the bottom of the page. >> Yeah, right there it says 5%. So that
the goal I guess for this contract is for 5%. >> No, no, >> no. The goal is probably 20. >> The goal is 8% on this. It's a this is a >> the next page. Go down the next page now. Yeah, it's 8% right there. So
>> 5% is the the overall dollar value that gets changed. >> So there's two things. There's a bid preference. There's a percentage for bid preference and then there's a percentage for contract goal for SVE after award. The bid preference is before award. So
it's when all the bids come in if the second lowest bidder is within 5% or $50,000 of the first lowest bidder and they are SB. So the second bidder is SB and the first bidder is not. The second bidder jumps to first place and will be
recommended. >> Who is the winner here on this? What is it? Apex, I believe, right? >> Yes. >> Apex if it is not an SB company. So how they win the award if >> because this there was no SB that's
within within 5%. It >> was no. Okay. >> Yeah. The second low the second bidder was not SB. >> Okay. if they were. >> So then it it flips over. >> Yes. >> So the 5% on this one is then kind of null and void. >> Yes. Yes.
>> Yes. And then the 8% is a contract goal. So that's now once we contract with Apex, now Apex has to hire 8% of the contract award to 8% of that to subcontractors that are SB. >> He's got to send it out to other roofers
to meet that requirement. >> Service too, right? Service. Okay. >> And you guys monitor that's that's leasable. >> Office of small business really does do the monitoring through the application process and B to G. You know, there's
Yes, it's all >> if you look at the bid tab, there's a little star if they are a small business. You can go through and see which ones are are not on page two >> of the same document. >> Yes. >> None of these roofers were next to E. >> Just one
stars next to >> Yeah. under Grace >> and Grace Roofing and sheet metal. See the star after their name. >> Oh, I see it. Okay. >> Okay. I was looking over in the prices thinking, okay, that's where it would be. >> Gotcha. All right.
>> There's There it is, Michael. >> Yeah. Scroll down. >> Yeah, I see it there next to the LLC. Okay. >> Um, that was my only I was looking for a discrepancy and you kind of clarified that you guys had some kind of a process in place to >> make that work. So, I'll move it
forward. >> Virginia. >> Yes. Um, on PC3, I just wanted to thank the staff for for all of that backup work you did. Uh, it was very, very well done. Thank you. >> We're on PC2 right now, Virginia, but we'll get there.
>> Oh, I I thought we moved on to PC3. >> All right. accepts the compliment. >> Sorry, I was talking to to the exterminator. >> We don't know what >> um >> I'll make a motion to move it forward to the board.
>> Need a second. >> Second. >> Second by Virginia. Any other comments or questions? >> Right. Staff pus, please. >> David Porter. >> Yes. >> Moo. >> Yes. >> John Treasure. >> Yes. Kevin Wilkinson, >> yes.
>> Lisa Reves, >> yes. >> Michael Gilfan, >> yes. >> Michael Guida, >> yes. >> Tom Burgerer, >> yes. >> Virginia Ferris, >> yes. >> And Christopher Tomkins. >> Okay, we got Mr. Tomkins.
>> Yep. Yep. We got thumbs up. >> Can I just say something about that list? Your comment is a is a very good comment. It's something that we struggle with with vendors often to explain to them the difference between that SB preference and the goal. Um, so I mean
attended the event last two weeks ago and it's something that we we really have a hard time explaining this this you know exactly what you picked up that it's the five difference between the 5%. We sometimes get vendors who will contact us and say, "Oh, so it says that you have to be an SD, so we're not going
to bid on this." And we said, "No, no, no. We you can still bid on this." So, it is something that, you know, if if you're even questioning it, we we have to keep working at this to to get that message out, >> right? >> Okay. PC3,
uh, John Chesher, go ahead. >> Okay. Can we go to the um backup that was provided responses to the questions by staff or by court members? Want to look at the um attachment that was
provided and go through the over there. >> There's a bit of a lag. Bear with us. We're pulling up the file now. >> Is very slow. >> Think the internet's very slow right now. >> Go scroll down to the negotiation
summary that you provided >> with the attachment. Yep. >> Get the negotiation summary. It's on page eight of that PDF. >> Up on page eight. >> It's down below that. >> That's what I'm saying. The attachment's not attached. >> You had an attachment in what you sent
us. So, it's 12 pages. >> It's only showing up on diligent is eight. >> No, it doesn't show up on Diligent. You have to You have to go to the PDF. I guess >> it's part of the Yeah, >> the PDF open. >> I don't see it on Diligent either.
I have it here. If you want to allow me to share the screen, I pop it up. >> Oh, AC3 didn't make up. >> Steph staff is getting it from another folder was sent to course. So, we'll have to get that uploaded. >> No.
Yes, she did. >> Got too many people trying to tell me what >> you keep going down page eight of that >> doesn't have it either. Okay, hang on. One moment. 12 pages. It's there.
>> There we go. >> There we go. Now, which page? >> Going to the third page. Right there. Back up one and scroll down just a little bit. Okay. Right. Right there.
The third paragraph there talks about um inconsistencies in the construction cost figures used in the comparison. And the first one was Sunset Palms. It says the estimated construction cost was 33 million. Well, I had quartered 43 million. And that's true. The pre-con
fee was based on the 33 million, but I think the um contractor knew it was 43 million at the time that he submitted his um uh or at the end of his pre-construction fee and he didn't ask for any more money. But yeah, that was my mistake. It
should have been 33 million. But the next one, Garcia High School, the correction is not correct. It was a $76 million project. The initial RFP said 59.9 but there was a addendum issued that
revised the construction cost of 76 million and that is what the pre-construction fee provided by Purle was based on was the 76 million and if you could scroll down to the last paragraph on that page
right there it talks about um staff found that the CM had included vehicle and telephone expenses in his um hourly rates.
>> And as far as I can tell, that's the only change that was made to the uh revised precon um the 5% reduction um because of the >> error there. Mike is
>> um if you can go to the next page right there back up to that table and we'll talk about that table a little bit. It's the title of the table says comparable modernization projects and the projects really aren't
comparable. The first off um the projects listed are in the range of 7 million to 30 million and of course our project is 56 million. So that's not really comparable and definitely a 1% fee would not be comparable. That's what I talked about um at first time this was
brought up that the higher the construction cost, the lower the percent cost should be for pre-construction service. Now this is common practice and is true for architects and engineers as well. In fact, the DMS curve which is
used to check AE fees incorporates this principle. So then I'm saying they're not compatible there. And secondly, the Northtech project, which is one we're talking about, only 16 million of that is renovation or
modernization according to Kor's estimate. And so that's 16 million of the 59 million total cost, only 30% of it is modernization. And so I think comparing comparing it to new groundup
projects is allowed. And finally, and I guess most troubling is the title of this table, basis of negotiation. I certainly hope that's not true. The percent of pre-con fee to
construction cost should not be the basis of negotiation. It's only used as a back check to see if the fee is reasonable. What is used is the actual hours assigned to each task.
And again, the percent is only a reality check to see if the fee is on par with other projects. So now looking at the fee proposal, I don't know if you want to bring that up. probably don't need to, but
as a preface, let me just say that let me remind the committee and for the new members that this project was originally awarded to Kaufman Lynn, the pre-construction services, and then the project grew from 29 million to 59
million. So, Kaufman Lynn's contract was cancelled and the project >> advertised again and the second selection went to core. So, we have Kaufman Lynn's precon fee proposal to compare with Kors
and that's what I did. I'm not sure if staff looked at COR's fee proposal breakdown or not, but that is really the crux of the problem here. Um, so on the fee proposal analysis, what is
different between Kaufman Lynn and Kors fees? Number one, Kaufman's rates are much lower. The core project exec is charging $226 an hour. Kaufman Lynn was charging $154
an hour. The estimators for core are in the range of $114 and they top out at $174 an hour. Kaufman Lynn was charging $70 per hour.
Next, the core senior management time is excessive. This is good. Core is using highlevel staff for most of the work. Project exact charges 226 an hour. The director of operations is
181. The principal is 200. So there's a total of 1336 hours or $236,000 in the precon fee for highle staff. So let's compare this to Kaufman Lynn. The
project exact charges $154 an hour and was only charging $11,000 to the project. So Kaufman Lynn used real worker bees let's say for their proposal where core used high level overhead or
high level staff project exec types in their fee proposal. Um, I'll give you another example of what uh what was different. The task project accounting systems, that's one of the items that they have in the
pre-construction fee that everybody has. And this is basically where they set up the project cost reports. So, that sounds pretty easy, right? Well, Kaufman Lynn using an accountant for this charge 56 hours at $55 an hour.
So, their fee was $3,000. core. Again, they use their top people for this simple task. They use the project manager, a director of operations, and a se senior PM.
$28 hours at $125 an hour, $26,000. Again, compare that to Kaufman L at $3,000 for that. And then there was other activities. That's the last item on the fee proposal.
Um, the activities that core listed, and I brought this up last time, should be part of the SD, DDD, and CD reviews. Um, some of those items are uh construction reviews. They charged extra
for construction reviews, procurement, planning, charging extra, those sort of things. And again, core loaded this up with senior staff. They charged a 100 hours a week for 14 weeks for those
activities. That was $27,000. Kaufman Lynn didn't charge anything extra for that. That is already in their fee. But what Kaufman Lynn did is they added their um SB subcontractor work in that category. So that was $36,000.
>> Committee. >> So I'm still seeing problems with this. And at this point, my only suggestion is that after this delay or elongated second negotiation period of six months,
I would suggest staff terminate negotiations with core and start negotiating with a second rant firm, which is allowed by the RFP. So needless to say, I'm going to be voting no again on this proposal. The fee is too high.
>> Mr. Sanchez. >> Um, I'm probably going to say something that that legal will probably say as well. Um, this is a a seem at risk qualifications based election. And while all those points
that were made about comparing cost are interesting, is really not doesn't determine how we sele do the selection on this this project. This is a CCNA selection based on qualifications, not based upon price. So, it's not it's not
the intent to to select the lowest proposer on this. Um you know I I I respect John's experience and um you know all these you know but the folks who are working on this have have similar experience and and have um have
gone through this evaluation um and they've come back with I think was just a reasonable a reasonable um precon proposal. I again a lot of us have been doing this for 30 plus years and the selection committee
selected again I'm not trying to defend core because I don't own core I don't own core any kind of allegiance but I I respect the process I respect the process of them making the select the selection committee went through I
respect the process that the negotiating team went through and um I hate to see us try to turn what is a CCNA qualifications based selection into a questionable about uh about cost only
because that's not what we looked at. We're looked at what is this team bringing to the table. Perhaps they do things differently than than Kaufman Lynn does or anybody else does and that's why they selected them. Again, I I don't participate in these elections and I don't directly participate in the
negotiations, but you know, I put people in position and then hold them accountable for doing it was the right thing. And but all due again, all due respect to um the member just spoke, there are a lot of people
who are involved with this who have a lot of experience and know what they're doing on this. I I hate to see us ignore everything that these these uh these ladies and gentlemen did in order to get us to this point. I think we need to move forward. >> Don Chesher.
>> Yeah. To Joe's point about qualification qualification based election. That's true. However, the your contract and the state statute CCNA allows you that if you cannot reach a successful
negotiation on fee with the selected firm that you can, like I suggested, move on, say, "Thank you very much, but we're going to go to number two." That is allowed by the statute. I I guess for staff my question would be
at what point do you pull the plug on somebody that has met the qualifications they've been selected and then they come in with a 3% uh you know fee that they want. >> Is that a general comment or that specific >> the general comment in terms of how do
we how do how do we hit the cutting point and say sorry this ends >> so we move on. Well, if I could just jump in, I think, you know, Mr. Sanchez's point is very important to consider because CCNA requires that we
select the most qualified firm, then we negotiate a reasonable and fair, and I don't have the statute in front of me, price. Staff has made the determination that this is reasonable and fair and and everything like that. I think that if the district were to now say, "Well,
where's another contractor out there and we're looking and they do it at a lower price," the district actually, I think, exposes themselves to liability from that firm saying that the price thing wasn't what you were supposed to consider. And so, you know, I again
think that if staff, you know, really to respect staff's decision, if they feel that the the fees that they've negotiated are reasonable and fair, then that really is the the what the statute requires. And if any other concerns come
into play, I think there is liability um that this, you know, from the number one ranked firm saying you didn't comply with the statute. Yeah, that that is to a point, but I think there is also a limit at which even the negotiating team could have
said should have said I don't know about this one. >> That is just way too much that time to time. We've done it a few times this year >> because our our goal also is to get the best project for the best price. >> Great last month with Mrs. Br.
>> Yeah. >> Do we we do that? Um and we've done it several times. A lot of the ones we've done on have been the smaller projects that haven't gone through, but um they're they're under the four million cap, but we've done that a handful of times. Um just one clarification to Mr.
Cheshure. The um there's an error there. That's not the basis of the negotiation that they're showing. You are 100% correct. That was just a like a check based to see if we're in range, but we really negotiated based on the hours that they proposed to do that work. Um, we did not negotiate the cost of each
employee here. We got the backup that they provided that that's the actual cost for that employee to do that work. So that's we got certified payroll saying that that person makes that much. Here's their labor burden. That's the cost for that employee. >> Sure.
>> Yeah. Um, so you didn't find any zero issues with their cost fee proposal because nothing there changed. And secondly, to um Holly's point about the statute, I have it in front of me.
I'll read it. Should the agency be unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the firm considered to be most qualified at a price the agency determines to be fair, competitive, and reasonable reasonable negotiations with
that firm must be formally terminated. The agencies are then undertake negotiations with the second most qualified firm. So you can do it. It's it's part of CCNA statute. >> And John, what I'm seeing and hearing is
that staff determined that all of those points were met. >> Doesn't agree with it. >> They do feel that this is still a competitive, reasonably priced proposal. >> I understand that. But there's no agreement yet. >> There's not an agreement until we
approve it or don't approve it and then the board approves it or don't does not approve it. So, we're still in that stage where you can terminate the contract. >> Mr. Michael, >> um, first, Mr. Cher, I appreciate
tremendously the detail and approach on this. I mean, you you you keep us on that the financial balance beam. Um the question here is not whether as I understand corp's role is not whether
staff has made a determination and as such we must follow it but our role is to provide a independent oversight and for that purpose we're the board is
asking us to provide uh input that would be independent and from time to time we do disagree with staff. U if I'm incorrect on our role then a I need
to hear some authoritative statement as to what and why I'm wrong. Um and that's okay. Call me out. That's that's that's perfectly okay. And then B, if that's if I'm incorrect, then why are we hearing it? Thank you.
Okay. Um >> I just wanted to um mention Michael's comment there and about the attachment a part two basis of negotiation that that's I take responsibility for naming that table. Um that is the incorrect
titling of that table. Um the purpose of that table is just to show that that's sort of our starting point when we you know are are negotiating with any contractor. Um we look at the similar projects and for us we're looking at
modernization projects because modernizations are renovations and new construction. Um so this this to staff was the correct starting point of what projects that we would be um compare using as
comparables. >> Virginia >> uh I really appreciate the work John has done on this so I thank you John and it has raised a lot of doubts in my mind also. Um what would happen if we decide no or
that we give the recommendation to um follow the the statute that says we can go to a second or do we go back to negotiations with core? And my other question is have we ever used core before? It seems to be a new name to me.
Well, but our role in Virginia would be a recommendation of yes or no to the board and then it's up to the board that they can disagree with us and uh and move forward with the contract. >> But we can also give uh a comment when
we uh give our vote so that you know we could give the comment as to what we believe they should be doing. But again, my question is is core new to our county? Have we used them before? I don't believe so. >> No,
>> we have none. >> So, we have no basis on which to >> We have no personal experience as a district, but they were they were at the top of the selection committee. So, um they met all the criteria that the
selection committee determined was right for this project. >> I think John raises some excellent points and I I I do remember school board member Gloria Branch. I'm not sure if she stayed on talking about the most qualified, the best school for the best
price. So, the best price is an issue. >> Well, it is from from certain members perspectives. Again, I go back to the point I've I've stayed quiet on this, but I want to go back to the point and say Mr. to Chesha's points. He's got uh
opinions on that. His experience when uh he he may have uh beliefs on certain things. His position isn't necessarily the guarantee end all be all absolutely right position. Now I worked for him so
I know he's always right but right that was that was my past history with him. But what I will say is that staff, we have done a thorough and even more thorough evaluation of pricing, what would be right, fair, and reasonable.
And to suggest that the numbers that are are out there that Mr. Chester has put out there are incorrect or bad, we disagree. What we're saying, staff is saying with our expertise and our
knowledge and our basis for coming up with the price that it is in fact reasonable. Now, I'm not going to say um a question was asked what will happen. I think Mr. Ferris, you asked what would happen if you guys voted no. I I can't
answer that. I would I would contend that I will work with Mr. Sanchez, who of course will work with the superintendent to determine whether or not the a recommendation of the despite a failed recommendation, whether we take it forward to the board for their
consideration. I'm not guaranteeing anything at this point. Okay? I I don't want you to feel like staff is going to say, "Well, then the heck with court." I'm not saying that. I don't even know for certain what Mr. Sanchez and the superintendent will feel about this
should it fail. So I don't want you to feel like you're making a vote that's going to kill something. You you all are going to evaluate it based on the merits what you believe and we've we on staff side have said we feel strongly that the
price is reasonable >> and and one thing to consider is um as these pro this is just the first phase of the project. we have to get to the construction phase. And what we have seen in some projects is the the firms that do a really really high level
precon phase has a direct impact on the cost of construction down the lines. So if they do a really good job during precon, our documents are tighter, our costs are less when we get to the construction phase. Whether that's going to pan out, I don't know. But as a general statement, that usually that's a true statement that the better job you
do in pre-con, the better numbers you get going forward. And that's yet to be determined on this project. >> Okay. Anything else on DC3? >> All right. Then I need someone to craft a motion.
>> Mr. Wilkinson, I think. >> Mr. Wilkinson. >> Um, yeah. I I just had one thing and I didn't I got to my microphone late. Um, is there any if if we John was talking about that these accountants do it for 55 an hour on the cost side and and the
core had the principles at 180 or whatever the exact numbers are. Is there any follow on afterwards where then the principles at 180 have to show you that they were the ones that did the work? remember I work in law firms and Michael did and Bruce um you know you bid with
the with the high guy at 100 but 180 but does a little minion do the job is there any cost accounting after the fact where you see who actually did the work uh involved for core or for Kaufman >> so in our contract it does give us the
ability to go back and audit any phase of the project that we choose to >> is that ever done uh you know 1% % five, you know, half of a percent is ever, how often are projects audited? >> Um, going forward, we're going to do
more auditing of it. Um, I don't know of a time when we basically if we're working on the project and our project manager sees that the executive is not working on the project, he vacant that would probably trigger us to do something like that. But they're actively working on the project. They
have the proposal. They have the team that's working on it. They know the numbers. So they would refer it to us to go back and and relook at that if we chose to, but we don't account for every hour that somebody does work on the project on
these. They get converted to a a fixed fee, a fixed fee. Um the just to track people's time sheets is is cumbersome. And the time sheets is just as good as the person that plugged it in there. Um doesn't mean they're actually working on it. They just put a number in there. So it's very hard to um retroactively
actually prove whether somebody worked on it or not. >> I I also want to stress one of the points about the the variance between what the project was. I know Mr. Chesher was talking about the Kaufman Lynn
comparison and there in my opinion there is no comparison. They are completely different projects and you know I appreciate Mr. Chesher's perspective. He knows I I have a great deal of respect for him and his position
on things, but I completely disagree in the analysis that was put forth to suggest that this is basically apples to apples on comparing cores. >> The reason we redid it the first time was not because Kaufman did a did a bad
job because it was a totally different project than what they started with. So we that's why we terminated that contract and started over because it's a complete new project. That was the whole reason. >> This project even has another layer of complexity on top of a typical modernization because we have the
construction on the same um same site but totally it's the same property but it's a completely separate construction project with another architect and another CM firm and we need all four of those folks to coordinate and to coordinate with the district. So, we
actually did hold a um a meeting with the architects of the two separate projects to kind of, you know, lay the groundwork of working that out just recently. So, that's something that we've never done before on any of these modernization projects. The projects are standalone projects typically, and
that's not the case on this one. >> Two foxes in the same penthouse, right? >> Sorry, contractors. >> Why were they not combined to allow you to have better control over both architects and contractors? uh because this one was done the the first one was done about a year and a half before the
second one. So, it's only the delay in the the approval of the CMS's pre-construction that has delayed the project enough so that they align. But now that they're aligning, they're working together as a team. >> We hope so >> because there's going to be some efficiency in the overall >> Sanchez.
>> Well, not only that, but um I mean it's two totally different kind of types of projects. You're talking about the transportation project and and the school project. >> Those are >> same two different types of expertise on the same site. >> I probably would have separated them anyway. >> No, understood. I thought there were two
similar education projects that we were just splitting apart. >> No, no, no. >> Okay. No, I wouldn't want school contractor building a transportation facility. >> Building a gas station versus a a hospital.
>> Okay. Um, any other discussion on this? If not, we need a motion. BC3 a motion from someone. >> Michael Gelfin. No, >> I'm going to wait for a motion. And when I hear the motion, then I will want.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Someone make a motion to proceed, not proceed. However you want your motion to be. I think it should probably be proceed and then people can vote negative if they want to. >> to go forward. If you can hear me go ahead.
>> Yes, sir. Now we can. >> Yes. I want to make a motion to proceed with this order. >> Okay. Uh we'll take yours as a second because France is in the room and she made the first motion. So we have a motion on the table to proceed. Any
other comments or discussion? Michael. >> Thank you. Uh first again, thank you Mr. Cheshure and I must say especially in this day and age um listening to the debate and some very strong opinions
that folks have um the debate has been honorable. Uh formal is appropriate and uh all participants uh especially watching what's happening outside of these rooms should be congratulated for that very very seriously.
um to the extent our charge is to provide oversight the question about what's reasonable and fair um to the extent we disagree with staff that is our role and I have a big
concern over the price creep uh that we're seeing you know large part is that we're dealing with inflation on the outside but you know to the extent that one contractor raises, another one does, and
then in essence, our contractor set what is now reasonable and fair. And if we don't intervene, then it just continues to creep and creep and creep. So, for that reason, I will be voting no. And thank you again, Mr. Chair.
>> Any other comments or questions? >> All right, staff. >> I do have a comment. Sorry about that. >> Hey, Tom. >> Um, Chester, don't ever audit one of my bills. >> Virginia.
>> Yes. I I I agree with with Michael and and with John. Um, I think we need to um let the board know our feelings. Whether this goes up to the board from the staff, that's fine. that that's the staff's
prerogative, but I believe we do need to do our oversight role. So, I'll be voting no. >> Kevin Wilkinson. >> Kevin, >> I think my comments have been covered. I'll I'll withdraw them. Thanks.
>> Yeah, I my opinion is that, you know, I'm going to rely on staff. I I don't like the idea that all the hourly rates and the people high up that are working on the project uh probably exceed what the
majority of our contractors charge. Um but I don't think that's our purview to critique that. It's up to staff to negotiate the total number and on staff that they did that. Kevin, your hands up again. Did you still have
something? >> Yes. So, I'm sorry. Mr. Cheshu did an excellent job in pointing this out. Something I glossed over and it's appreciated and it's kind of a little bit of a wakeup call, but when I think about it, I kind of agree with Mr. Sanchez that you got to trust some of
the judgment of the staff that isn't it lives in the battlefield in the trenches here. So, with that said, you know, Mr. Chesher is going to be here at the next meeting. So whatever happens next, you know, I think going forward, whether we say yes on this one, going forward, they
know that they'll have to deal with Mr. Cheshure in the future. So staff judgment plus Mr. Cheshure is a beautiful combination. So I agree with Mr. Sanchez. >> Okay. Any other comments? All right, staff, go ahead and hold,
please. Uh, hold on. Virginia, >> I just wanted to say I don't look at this as as uh any uh lowering of my esteem for the staff. Please understand that I do believe staff uh has worked
very very hard on this but there are other principles involved. Thank you. >> Okay. Going once, going twice. >> So close. >> Did you have Okay. No more comments. That's it. Closed. Pull us, please.
>> David Porter, >> yes. >> Mville, >> yes. >> John Tesher, >> no. >> Kevin Wilkinson, >> yes. >> Lisa Reves, >> no. >> Michael Gilan,
>> no. >> Michael Guido, >> yes. >> Tom Burgerer, >> no. Virginia Ferris, >> no. >> And Christopher Tomkins, >> no. >> What's the vote?
>> Six to four. No. >> No. So, the motion will be going down that clerk does not recommend that this move forward and that'll go to the board. And >> yeah, and John, can you create a statement for that?
>> Yes, please. Basically the we feel the fee is too high. >> Short and simple. >> Yeah. >> The the hourly rates is too high. The number of hours are too high. The fee in total is too high to what we think it
should be. >> Okay. We are done with consent and I'm actually going to be at the board meeting next week so I can provide a quick verbal
uh and and if I can step on your toes then um thank you very much Mr. Porter because the reason why Mr. reporter is going to be there next week is to honor him and the rest of the team that works on the Seminal Ridge High School, the
Habitat for Humanity program, um the u the homes. Um and it's a it'll it'll it's going to be a nice honoring of that group and all the activities you guys do. And again, I can't thank you enough for everything you always do for those
students. Thanks. Congratulations, David. Welld deserved. >> Thank you. Congratulations. I'll be there. Okay. >> All right. We are down to item four. They're now called on uh diligent. Uh that's the policy
implementation. >> Okay. >> Interrupt for a second. I'm sorry. >> I have a meeting I have to go to, so I'm dropping out. >> Okay. We have a quorum still. Thanks, Tom. >> Thank you. Uh, David Brooks, I believe, essentially I already pulled it up. We got it. You
have um I'm gonna kind of lead off and then I'm gonna let the guys that actually do the real work um um head up. Um the uh first item I want to make uh everybody understand that there have been five policies that you all have
seen several of times. um they have now gone to the board through their processes several times over and they have now been passed and adopted. Uh the one policy was just a repeal of the HBAC and then the other four policies we've
gone over them at length. Um I'm going to lead off on the first one which is just one piece of the first one which is 1.093. Um that is Cork. That's the uh policy for Cork. And I want to let everybody understand that the one of the uh
conditions in the new polic or the updated policy was to try to give each board member um one at large position. This was uh adjusted based on a request from our board to basically make it a little bit
easier for them to find people that had expertise in the fields in which you all court members are. Um so what we had what we now have instead of four at large we have seven at large positions and then the remainder of the positions
you can see them listed there on the screen. Um what what was what's generated here is simply a list of the positions and uh an intent to make sure that each board member had one at large
position and one technical position. I I realize that some of you may look down these and say, "Well, I I could be the engineer or I could be the uh the u contractor or the attorney." Um, yes, you absolutely could. When when when I
set this up, the intention was to try to balance it and make sure that every board member had an atlarge position and an, you know, an engineer position or an attorney position or a contract position. That's not to say that there's any differentiation on your abilities or
anything like that. And in fact, one of the key points I want to make on this policy or on this piece of the policy was simply that the recommendation was taken by Cork to ensure that the language is right in there that says all uh we strongly recommend that all at
large positions um that the board member tries to find somebody with expertise in one of the areas uh of uh listed here. So even though you're in at large you it's really expected to have everybody
with some expertise in the in construction engineering architecture facility operations that happen. Um so with that I'm I'm posting this if there are any concerns or questions certainly bring it up to me. I I can
adjust it. But I also wanted to make sure that I did this because we have to post this on the website or on the uh the diligent page. Um and one of the other points that I wanted to make was please forgive us on diligent. There's a bunch of stuff
that's overlapping and duplicated. And again, we're going to fix these things as we go along. So I noticed one somebody had made a comment about our agenda. Why do we have it down in section nine and the agenda itself is the agenda? Good point. One of the
things we're starting to realize is we have had a tendency to well that's the way we've always done it, right? That's the we're trying to um look at all these items and especially with your all suggestions um with a new set of eyes and say can we
can we clean this stuff up? Can we make things better? So just because it's the way it is now doesn't necessarily mean we're stuck with it. So I know Mr. Gelfin, thank you very much for pointing that out about the uh the agenda and I kind of questioned it myself. We'll come back and figure those things out as we
go forward. >> Virginia. >> Um yeah, I just have a question. I wasn't aware that Tom's background was in construction and real estate law. I know Michaelels is, but I wasn't I
wasn't aware that Tom Burgerer was had that background. >> Tom does try some construction cases. I know. I I don't know if he's certified though, but uh he's an excellent attorney. Um I see that, you know, I'm
board certified in both uh real estate and condominium, which deals with construction a fair amount. So, um, we can discuss that offline, David, if we need to. >> Yes. Yes, sir. >> But it would have been nice to, you know, someone let me know before this is
published. >> Virginia, I've done a couple of cases with Tom as his expert, and he does defense, uh, legal work, um, and a lot of construction litigation, defense work. So, he knows what a 2x4 is.
>> Okay. I do, too. But don't send me to court. Just a clarification. So the um the policies are on the diligent website. If you go to the homepage, there's a button that says policies. You can find the new policies. If you go back to board docs or the old policies, don't do that. Look
at the diligent website. And the d the policy talks about the makeup of the board, the positions, not the specific roles in those positions. >> Kevin Wilkinson. >> Yes. I while we're on this page though, I just wanted to make full disclosure. Miss Branch particularly is that I'm not
a CPA. I've been done construction litigation and commercial litigation my whole life. I do have an accounting degree, but I'm not a CPA. Never estimated a a construction project. I've litigated about estimates and so on. I've litigated about construction costs, but I'm not a construction cost analysis
either. So, I don't want to be here under false pretenses, and I can go kayaking if you like. >> Thank um thank you mi Mr. Wilson mentioning it that ex the the descriptions that are written there um were me trying to
summarize the actual language in the policy. There are a couple other positions that that uh description for Mr. Wilkinson um where in which he does uh fit into it. So please forgive me. That was that was us trying to summarize
and um not maybe not from now on I'm just going to add them all in because when you see the some of the descriptions for some of the positions we talked about are four, five, six different types of descriptions. So, but I'm going to I'm going to update it and clean it up and
put every one of them in there just for the for clarity. Miss Branch. >> Uh, Kevin, I didn't write the description. >> Yes. >> And I just kept when I got elected, I
kept you guys on because you know what you're doing. >> Yes. Okay. Thank you, Virginia. >> Thank you. >> Is Bruce Alexander with us today? >> He had an excused absence. >> Excused. I was just wondering about
whether he filled any of that certified public account and construction estimator class analysis's position and would swap with >> Kevin lawes with him too. >> Yeah. One of the first board certified
construction lawyers in the in in the state. >> Okay. Staff continue. Did you have more policy updates? >> I was gonna say I'm gonna turn it back over to Jud and to Michael to kind of touch on the others. So you can take
this one off and go back to start with this. >> Yes. >> So this is a a flowchart. So with these policies, we've had to adjust basically everything we do with change orders, right? So we had to adjust our workflows um in order to keep things under the 35
days. That's when we talked about the pre-approval process um that we all presented to the board for items that may run over 35 days. Um there is obviously u most of our contracts that we have don't have that 35day clause yet at this point because the if the law has
been adapted, but it's only when we get a new contract, but we want to prepare for that going forward. Our goal is to do all the change orders in 35 days regardless of the new or old contract. Um so Jud do you want to kind of walk us through the flowchart? There's two different flows there.
>> Yeah. So this this flowchart overall um addresses two things. The first here is how we would bring a pre-approval through. This is be the normal board process where we would bring up an item to court for review. And then we'd be saying, "Hey, this is this is what's coming down the line. It exceeds the delegated authority according to the new
policy. Um so we need you guys to take a look at it and either recommend to the board that they allow us to to do it or not. and we would take it through and then after you guys have reviewed it, it would go to the board and the board can then say yes or no to um basically increasing the superintendent's
authority for that single individualized item because that's how it would work. Then once once they do have the pre-approval, then it would go through the the a similar process to what we do now for the delegated authority items where we submit it. Um the GM does a a review and determines which level of
authority goes through. on a pre-approval item, they would all go to the superintendent because it's the board is basically saying, "Yes, we give you permission to to approve this change order in in excess of your normal delegated authority as long as it's under that budget that you brought to us as the as the uh you know, refer of
magnitude with with the description. Um so that is how this is going to work. But for most of our change orders, we're going to be following the delegated authority um route. It's only on the larger ones that we have to have to take board approval. And obviously at the end of that that
approval process, they get reported towards the end to cork and then to the board like we do normally on FC1 items. >> Yeah. What is the large how how large do they have to be to get to us? >> So uh right now the superintendent's delegated authority is at $200,000.
Okay. So larger ones would come through as an basically kind of like we do FC2 items or FC3 items, you know, where we where we have a board approved stuff in the past. we would bring that through as an agenda item with a pre-approval saying review what we're asking the
board to give us uh the authority to write a a change order for and then you guys that's when honestly you guys are going to get it way in advance of us getting an actual change order. So that's this is the best time for you guys to tell the board, hey, we don't think you guys should be spending money on this. And then it's up to the board
to either approve or deny us the ability to issue that as a change order after the, you know, once we get approval. >> And depending on the item, some items we're going to have really good documented costs for that item. A lot of other items we're just going to have a guess. So we may bring a pre-approval
for, you know, um $250,000 and you say that that's not a good number, but there's unknowns in there. and we'll then when we vet the number we'll get the actual cost because we can't exceed it. So same token so some of those we may really think they're 135,000 150,000 but we're going to estimate high do a
pre-approval because if we don't and we get stuck with a change order over 200,000 then we're sunk because it can't go to the board and it really limits our options for review. >> So if it comes for pre-approval at 250 and you find comes in at 300 then what happens? >> Then we're in trouble. >> Then we're in trouble. That's why that's
the that's why whenever we're getting close to 200,000, we expect to bring a pre-approval regardless. We may look at one that that if we talk to the contractor and they say, "Yeah, it's probably going to be in the $175,000 range." We may be a bring a pre-approval to you anyway because if it creeps over $200,000, even by a dollar,
>> we're in trouble. We can't make it to the board. So, because of the the timeline doesn't allow it. Um, so in that case, by the time we could still do our reviews and everything, but it wouldn't be able to get to the board until it' already be approved by statute. So, the idea is even the ones that start to encroach on that $200,000 limit, we may bring to you anyway for
pre-approval and they may end up once it's actually approved, it may be approved at, you know, once the change order is submitted, it might be 195. So, it wouldn't have it would have fallen under the delegated authority regardless, but then we have that that u um catch just in case it exceeds it. So,
>> I would think stuff coming here, at least my opinion would be if you come to us and say, "All right, this is 250." Well, that's your allowance. >> Exactly. That's basically what it is. That's the limit >> you got. Okay. If it doesn't go over that, go ahead and >> that's how that's how the preals coming back. >> But we're still even if it if even if it
we say 250 doesn't mean we're going to get charged 250. We're going to go through I know you understand that. I just want to make sure that we want to make sure we're going to do our due diligence negotiate a fair cost for that specific scope of work because a lot of those pre-approvals, we're not going to have a super defined clear scope. We're going to have just, hey, we're going to
add this room, right? That's it. >> Do we get to see what the actual final cost is once you know? >> Yes. Yes, every change order gets reported to you guys monthly. Everyone that gets approved item, >> yes, you would see but you would see that it was uh you know if it exceeds the delegated authority, you'll see that
it's been preapproved and we that's one of our checks in the uh in the review process to add that pre-approval if it's necessary. >> And then every time we do a project closeout, we're going to have a full list of all the contingency uses and a full list of all the change orders in one package. >> The cork will be able to review that
project as a whole with all the changes throughout the thing as they close out. would you like? >> You'll want to miss that meeting. >> We're gonna have we're gonna have a lot of those, but um yeah, >> you want me to go through the uh the new checklist? So, um as part of the new policies, what we've also um done is is
uh strengthen our checklist and add a second layer of review that the GMs are normally doing here. Um so, we've got we've got this is our internal checklist of how we're doing everything. So, um these give steps that the SPA or project coordinator who's running the project
for the district does. And then down at the bottom here are items that we we double check. This is the contingency use. So one of the things is that um the the GM is checking that the cumulative total of the contingency use it doesn't exceed you know the original GMP's um uh
uh contingency amount. So this is just a more detailed checklist for for our staff. And then uh the intent here is that we also have a more detailed uh form now with uh items added like purchase order numbers and whatnot. So the intent here is that when you guys
get when you guys have a report, instead of having the FC1 item, which is just a bunch of narratives, we want to give you the FC item of all these cover sheets for change orders so that you can see who the delegated authority, who signed it, who the contractor was, who the architect was, all the details will be
there with the with the description in these areas here. And then the the use items and and costs and everything would be on that same sheet. It's going to look a little bit different, but it will have a little bit more information for you as you review it. And I want to back up real quick. There is one exception.
Um, we may bring items forward that are under the delegated authority if we're reaching the threshold of the project cumulative limit. >> Yeah, >> that may be a separate item. Hopefully, we don't run into that, but we may. >> Yeah. So, and then the change order is is similar. We have a bunch of new new
steps, new reviews. But in the change order, this is where we're checking that the cumulative amount of changes hasn't exceeded 500,000 on a project under 7 and a half or a million over 7 and a half because those are now the uh the cumulative checks on those projects. Um as well as these are these are more
detailed checks to make sure that budgets available in the project already and that budgets been moved and whatnot. So these are there are a lot of extra checks. We've strengthened this to try and prevent delays. Um and in the chair >> before you sir um cumulative changes are
by anybody with delegated authority from the superintendent to the SBA. >> Well SBA no longer has SBA no longer has delegated authority. The first level is at GM. >> Um we increased the overall number for the superintendent but we dec we we
eliminated some of the lower-end ones so that um as kind of a balance because we we were asking for more. So, we said, "Hey, we're going to require a more um stringent uh um review on our end by doing so because we're asking for more freedom. We also need more responsibility."
>> I think one thing to note on that in regards um David's our only GM right now, um Maris Canyon, who used to come to these events, he went back home to Missouri, so um he resigned. So, we're in the process of hiring um a couple new GMs actually. But right now, David's the
only one authorized to sign on the GM level. Um or myself or D. We can push it up higher. So if like if David's on vacation or something, it can come to me and if I'm out it can go to Dave higher levels, but it can't go below that. >> Also, I guess who keeps tally of the cumulative total?
>> That's a that's a great question. The cumulative total is is uh um documented on the change order logs that are that we attach to every change order. That's that's one of the checks actually if you look up here. Sorry. Um just wonder that's something as monthly month to
month to month goes is something the court could get a quick report to just show okay we haven't hit the cumulative total or is that >> that is something that the that is something that we're reviewing and we're we are that's a double check that's even something that the SPA is reviewing and the GM or second reviewer is reviewing
so it is a double check on that item and we're doing that based upon the cumulative uh approved um change orders that have been done so far. So that is that is why this check is here is so that we are specifically looking for that on the lawn. >> I'm just thinking again we report to the
board and we basically give the board our you know review saying we're watching things. >> Yeah. >> I'm just thinking it'd be nice possibly if it can be worked in that we just as a one-page report you give us a line item of school A, school B, school C, and
here's where the cumulative total is this month, next month, next month. We can then report to the board. We've reviewed the cumulative totals and they are all within policy >> talking about for every job >> saying >> because we're talking about a very long
>> Yes. That's the problem is that we're talking hundreds of projects. It it's it's and the the whole what we're trying to do here is not have duplicated work that that takes a lot of time. So, one of the reasons that we're giving we want to give you these cover sheets rather than the that individualized word
document with all the narratives is to prevent us from having to to rewrite the narratives twice or three or four times. So, if we can anything we can do to eliminate extra steps that are just duplications of information we already have, we're trying to do. We're trying to optimize and and add efficiency. Um,
right now we we have uh we have running logs, but the only thing that we could provide you to make that would be attaching the log behind each of the cover sheets that you would have to look at individually and determine yourself if you you believe that we we have not exceeded it. But >> I can make a recommendation maybe that's
on an ad hoc crisis that hey this is you seems to be a lot of change on this project. Can you provide the log for that? We would do that. And then again at the end of every project you're going to have all the logs with all the detailed information to look at it as a as a whole. So down here also, if you if you um see here, we've added a a
checkbox for if the board's pre-approved it. So obviously, if it exceeds the $200,000, we'll have, you know, board pre-approval. So that's something that we would be attaching to as backup to so that you guys can verify that it, you know, we we did provide that. Um and
we've we've uh added some additional um uh selections to our our normal form. one being uh CCD reconciliation because we can't build for CCDs until they're reconciled as a change order and that just means that we had a CCD that went forward and now we have to do a change
order to make it official. Uh and then also the direct material purchase program. So any deductive change orders that that are just for direct material, we added that in here so that it's very clear because before it would just we only had the choice of school district request or buyout or what other items. So we have gone in and and changed these
based upon the policy. And then down here at the very bottom of the check of the form is the delegated authority with the with the new um delegated authority levels. And I'll zoom in a little bit so everybody can read that a little better. But this very clearly states that the general manager has 50,000 or 50 days.
Uh and then department director, chief of facilities, chief operating officers and superintendent. So those are the delegated authority levels. They are listed here on the change order sheet for easy reference. And I even have the sorry it's hard to see because it's cut off but 722 is listed here um at the
delegated authority and then even up here this is the board pre-approval if it's in excess of the the um the ones below. So we tried to make it very uh you know one-stop shopping with this to make it clear and and have all the information you need on it without
having to have multiple pages. So that was kind of the intent is to give you everything you need on one page. Um or at least as much as we can we can give you. >> If you get to or exceed delegated authority, does everything on that job then become a change order?
>> No, this is this is word change order. So if we exceed the delegated authority cumulative, you mean of the 500,000 then everything at that point would have to go for board pre-approval. >> So this change order. >> Well, yeah, but this is a change order. If we >> these don't come to us. Change orders do
come to you every month. That's what I'm saying. This comes to you every month. This is a change order. You will get you will get this summary page every month on every project. Our intent was to provide you a list of them all. Like item one is change order three from whatever project. But then all the backup data is here. It shows you who
the contractor, who the architect, when it was submitted. Also, we are tracking. It >> says unrelated to contingency which the contractor is allowed to use if you guys approve it. >> Exactly. So this also we've we've um we've updated these uh documents for uh the PCO receipt date. So the proposed
change order receipt date this is something that we're tracking internally. This is the date in which the SPA or project coordinator actually received it from the architect because because the way it flows is the CM submits a package. Architect approves it and submits their letter and sends it to us. Once we've approved it, that's the date that goes in there. That way we
know when it was received, not who signed it when, but when it was actually received by to us and that's what we're going to track against the 35 days in the future. >> Is that what the statute says? It's >> it's upon receipt. It's upon receipt. >> Receipts comes from >> and our contract says that the
architects submit all change orders. >> Okay. >> So the CM submits the change order for the architect's blessing and then once the architect blesses it, it comes to us. At that point, we we're in receipt. Do we have a contract time for the architect has to uh process it after receipt? >> Um I do not believe so. We've done a lot
of uh recommendations for contract changes for the CM. I don't know if we've done the same for the architect coming >> architect could take two months and getting it over to you guys. >> Good. >> But that's not our problem. >> Exactly. >> But it is because the job and the OAC meetings. Yeah. Exactly. That every two weeks an OAC meeting the contractor is
going to be all over the architect. >> It would be definitely a problem for us because we're trying to speed the process up. If the architect is not getting it for two months, then that violates what we're trying to do >> to address. >> And we are doing um a new contract,
Barbara, for the CCNA architects um >> what October maybe. >> Yeah. >> In that range, >> in the fall. >> In the fall, >> one of those items should be a time frame from change order documentation from the CM >> until it gets issued to the district.
>> So, the the last set of forms and and checklists that we updated were the ACUAS. Now, the reason we put the ACAs last is because this is this is kind of a hybrid system here. Um, so they have a very similar uh go-ahhead including a log and and where to locate the log and the checks about, you know, that we're
not exceeding the the allowable design contingency that's in the PO. But the difference is that right now um ACUAS, you know, it was written into policy um that ACUAS can adjust the contract value. That was what it was before. But
what we've done is made sure that if the ACUA does increase the PO number, then it is treated with the same delegated authority limits as a change order. So that's why we have a hybrid box here that says, "Hey, this ACUA actually increases the design contract." Okay? So that would be for this box here. So, if
we had, let's say, a $20,000 design contingency, which we call additional services in their PO, but for some reason we asked them to do $25,000 worth of design. This would say we need to increase that by 5,000. Okay? And then down here, it would say now you can use
25,000 of that. See what I'm saying? So, there's multiple lines in this because of the issue with being that this can be both. If it does, if it is a um if it does increase the um contract amount, the PO amount, then it's treated with the same um delegated
authority limits of 722, which is why down here, if it is one of those, then it would apply. If it did not increase it, then the delegated authority limits don't apply because it's not a change order at >> Back up a little bit. >> Yeah. the architect is authorized to
deduct this amount from the design contingency. >> If it's already into a negative, then you're going to get, you know, if the design contingency was 20,000. >> Now I need to have another five. >> Yes. >> It's going to be a minus 5,000. >> No, it would be $25,000 is deducted from
it. 5,000 is added in this first year. >> Okay. You're increasing the contingency >> by 5,000 and then deducting it by 25. Yes. Yes. And that would prompt that box, the small box to be checked. >> Yeah, that's why we have it in its own little separate island because it only
really applies if so if we're increasing it, then all this stuff in here applies. If not, >> it's not. So, >> and the log is set up that if if it did go negative 5,000, then there's a red box shows up on the log itself. >> Hey, you can't do this.
>> Yeah. So, we are we are trying to implement checks and and and um and make sure that we're following the policy as written and and following it to a tea and and making sure that everything we do has proper oversight to
make it uh make it correct. >> So, any questions by anyone so far? >> Keep going. Uh Virginia, >> I find it totally confusing. So, I'll have to wait to see how it when you
submit it how it works out. >> But to me, it seems like it's just organizing the heck out of stuff that wasn't as well organized before. >> Exactly. >> And channeling it so that it's now going to comply with state statute. >> Correct. >> And gets reviewed by us.
>> I Yeah, I understand complying with the state statute. I'm just saying as he flips through these, as I'm sitting here, it, you know, he's it he's doing a good job. It's my mind that um I'll need time to >> No, it is it is a bunch of new confusing
stuff. I'm not trying to memorize it. I'm just trying to, you know, take >> All right. Thank you. >> Keep going. >> Well, those are the those are the three sets of forms that we've updated. just showing you that we're we are trying to maximize our efficiency and also have our our checks and balances to make sure
everything's done properly. >> Um Michael, did you want to look at anything? >> You don't see any of this stuff and all this documentation until a gigantic book is given to us at the end of the job. >> So at the the intent is that we would provide these sheets for the change orders and any ACAs that are being
treated as change orders because of the increase on a monthly basis. So that would become our FC1 report to you would be change orders and and ACUAs that are that are increasing the cost. Um at the end of the project, we intend to give you the every single one of these um
cover sheets attached to a log so that you can see all the ACAs and CCAs that were contingency use um and then look at the project as a whole. The idea there is at that point if you do have any questions about specific items, we can get into the backup. But yeah, we don't want to give you 7,000 pages of backup
if you if you guys really don't have a question about it. But the the issue is that it's a lot easier to look at a project and look at 25 contingency uses all as a whole on a big project because then you can really see well all right yeah this one was big but the others were all tiny and you know it puts
everything into perspective rather than looking at with you know blinders at each item individually as we report them monthly. So, >> so the change orders will come >> say that we can't have 700 day delays before we get a report on a project that's been done 700 days ago. So,
somehow even if the job is not fully closed out and we're just waiting on a door knob and it hasn't closed the job out, we want to be able to make our comments way sooner to close out almost as if the punch list is still possible. >> Understood. So, we can we can look at that because there are some other
options that we can address. >> I'm sorry, Michael. Sorry. >> Yeah. So the change orders themselves will come either two or three times to you if three times with the pre-approval twice with the delegated authority and at the end of the job also for the change order. >> Yeah, we do want to provide you that
full log with every change order listed as well for that project. So you can see a whole you know you can look at the whole uh the project as a whole of what the changes were not just peacemeal. >> Do architects also have the same 35day changes? >> No contractors. just contractors though
didn't have a big enough lobbying group. >> Oh, yeah. Nobody cares about the architects. >> Oh, and uh there was one other thing I I didn't mention before on the contingency, but um we have uh added the contractor error and omission for our tracking purposes. That is showing up in
our log as well. That's just so that by the end of the job, you can look at those contingencies and see how much were actually related to the contractor missing something or making an error on their GMP uh uh that caused it, you know, them to use the contingency. >> Should they be separated into error and then a separate one for omission?
Because should our policy kind of only go after them if it's an error? >> Well, hold on. So, our policy goes after architects for errors and architects for omissions. Our no nowhere in our contractor policy do we go actually go after the contractor for their own errors. This is also >> Never mind. Yes, that is only that's
only our tracking for that. Over here you have design error and omission still on the on the other. >> So we're going to track this and it'll be part of the selection committee. So there's a good there's no there's incentive there for the contractors do a really good job in precon and not use that contingency because they blow through their contingency even though it
was accounted for. It's going to show that they did they should have done a better job in precon. >> Contingency and every one of these has a check off they got a problem. >> Exactly. and and that's that's going to be a way for us to to look at them later. And we are trying to make our our
PPE that's another future revision um be more be less objective and more or sorry less subjective and more objective where we have actual data and so we are have been um kicking around you know percentages of of errors and omissions that the contractor makes as part of their overall grade
>> for architects as well that's where we're putting the language you hey you have seven days to review these change orders and we'll have data as we move to Cahooa that hey you did this or not so your PP is going to reflect actual time that you versus how they do kind of good, you know. So,
>> quantifiable. >> It is a form where you would put the tariffs or attract tariffs as well. >> No, we we uh we have not we're not doing anything specifically with tariffs right now. Right now, tariffs are considered a buyout because that's what the contract
allows them to be done as. Uh the contract language states that those are like like the um uh cost escalations of material that that we experienced at COVID. You I know you guys love to see those come through, but it's treated in the same paragraph with tariffs there.
So, um it's a it's a different thing. So, that's considered a buyout adjustment because that's an adjustment to the the difference of cost between what was originally in the GMP and what they had to expend. So, that's not really we we don't differentiate that here on on these. This is really about
um adding some additional uh uh uh categories. Thank you, David. Adding additional categories that we want to track and we also eliminated some categories that used to be here that we really couldn't foresee actually being contingency use like one was was regulatory agency. If the regulatory
agency comes to us and says, "Hey, we need to change this. We need to add a signal signal at a high school that we're building." That's not a contingency. That's a change order cuz because they've they've mandated us add something that wasn't in the original documents. So, we're trying to keep these also very clear clear-cut so
there's no gray area because we do not we do not want to skirt reporting to court on change orders by issuing contingencies in theirstead. So, we tried to very clean this up so that it wouldn't be allowable to accidentally issue a contingency or a change order that should be issued as a change order
as a contingency and that you guys won't see until the end. So, we're we're taking that very seriously. Have you ever thought of becoming an auctioneer? >> You do rattle off the words, but it's on. >> But there are better definitions in the new policies for each of these categories.
>> That's all we had for the policy update. >> Okay. I just want to make a comment. No questions, just a comment. I wanted to show appreciation to the staff. uh when the legislations first came down, I think the court as a whole, we just kind of had issues, not issues, but concerns that maybe our roles were getting
minimized. But I see that you guys put in a lot of work in these forms and I believe that moving forward, we're still going to uh be able to make some progress in terms of like transparency and tracking. I'm appreciative and I just wanted to say that. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Okay, we're gonna move on. Um nobody else has questions or comments. Good. All right, let's go to staff updates and in progress work. You can merge them together. >> Okay. Well, with staff updates, um sorry if I put you on the staff order, but um
on behalf of staff and the entire court membership, I I we we wish to offer our sincerest condolences passing of your lovely wife and we pray for you and your uh your >> bless you. Bless you.
>> Thank you. Do you have anything from my staff? >> Yes. >> Two things. I know we talked to Mr. Porter about it, but the um the parking lot project is moving forward in the near future. So, um we're we're looking into alternate locations of having the
cork meeting. Um whether you choose to come in online, we're probably looking at the Q center, but we'll we'll have to work out those details. Um it won't be for the April meeting, but possibly for May. Um depending on the timing of the thing of the project. So, um, >> and it's a how long?
>> Six months. >> Six months. >> Six months. Um, we there, so there's, as you notice, there's no drainage at all out here. So, all that has to be redone and completely, um, start over. >> What's the location? Sorry to cut you.
>> Potentially, >> potentially. Yeah. >> The Pew Center, which is um, >> it's in Gardens next to Middle School. I'm sure you guys will provide us with the address. >> Room doesn't work. Bton Holland doesn't
>> have to get it. >> I want to Mr. Gelfan. >> I There was some garbling there. Is staff going to be moved out of the building during this period or if not are there what arrangements are going to be made for staff?
>> Yes, we have we have several different options. We have um remote work policies. We have a couple alternate locations for staff to be working out of. Um one of those uh we haven't worked out all the details, but there's several different options. Um next door there's a
>> That's okay. I just wanted to just >> They're not coming to your office, Michael. >> What you got room for? It's over there. >> I'll let Mr. Chester negotiate the uh proceed. And um the last thing I wanted to mention for a staff update is I'd like
you to look at the Dave's update in a different lens here. So we're transitioning from all of our 2016 referendum projects which are still going to go on for another um three years to fully fully close out that work and um do the financial closeout and everything, but we're also doing 2024
referendum projects. We're gearing up. So, as you're looking through this, if there's some information in here you think you don't really need or other information that you think would be valuable, let us know because we have an opportunity to do a new report of what that's going to look like. So, I'd love court's feedback on what do you really want to see in these monthly updates.
So, maybe look at that lens. >> I would think you just give us an update from what happened last month because we meet every month. So, if there's something physically that's happened on one of the projects or a planning issue that you're telling us is upcoming, I don't think it matters where it's
getting funded from. It's a project. I mean, that would be what I would look at. >> You're updating us on the construction activities of the construction and facilities department. And that's um that's Thank you, Michael. That I appreciate that. Going into this
uh my my my monthly presentation, I know I talk way too much. So, I'm want to try to minimize it. As I said earlier, I'm looking to try to pair down if there's something. It's the way we've always done it, but let's look at redoing it. So, for >> the motion,
>> um so for example, the numbers, the second slide, um that right now is based on a 2016 refer, >> right? >> I don't even think you need to tell us that. >> Exactly. And that's so every month I struggle trying to get information and
what are we trying to say? What are we including? What aren't we including? Um, but we're going to work on adjusting that stuff. But I think we know the jobs are paid for. We know the money is coming from either cops or some part of the referendum or just the capital fund. >> Yes.
>> I don't know if that matters. I think it's more the visual of okay, here's how close we are to finishing this school. >> Yes. And and and that's I appreciate that sentiment. We will look at that. >> Um, David, are you suggesting we not see this?
>> I was just suggesting Yeah, we do. We do we kind of know or care where the money's coming from and how much we see that on each project. >> Well, you you probably see a lot more of this on your other committee, but but I
always look at this. >> Okay. Okay. >> Okay. Well, thank you very much. Again, that's the feedback I'm looking for. Exactly. >> I mean, it's it's online, so you you don't have to spend time discussing it, but at least give it to us.
>> Absolutely. Um and certainly we're going to we're going to readjust this because as as mentioned earlier now if it is about the finances, you know, there are a bunch of different um pots that the money is coming from and we want to make sure that it's clear what we're doing
and what um what what are our obligations under those monies because I know I just saw seven >> and her financ behind the scenes listening to you guys. Um we are providing um detailed reports. There's actually a presentation to go to
the ISOC committee quarterly and those are also going to be in diligent. They've been in board docs. Um it'd be very easy for um Mr. Dolan to add a link to Cork so that you can look at those materials. Um it's presented
differently, but this summary page, the first two numbers at the top um come directly from those ISOC reports. So, we can certainly make those available and they're online. They're public information. You can go look at them at any time. Uh, Mr. Dolan, I had a good
discussion yesterday about what ISO needs to see is probably different than what Cork needs to see, but COR members can certainly look at the ISOC materials at any time. Um, so it's very easy for us to link those up.
>> Okay, Mr. Gelfin. Michael Gelfin. Um though I'm struggling constantly with narrowing the flow of information to me from all perspectives. Um and while this particular piece of
information may not directly reflect on us um I I find it valuable because all of us sitting around the proverbial table are emissaries and we add to the transparency of the use of substantial
amount of public funds. And um we do have the ability and we do touch in many ways other members of the of the public, the constituency out there and we hopefully reinforce
uh how the district to the staff's credit is properly conserving and expending these funds. Um, I think that the time invested in just popping this up is relatively minor. Um,
>> sounds good, good, good, good thoughts. 20 minutes. >> Okay, scrolling on. Um, this is um, you'll notice this slide is usually a lot bigger. We're actually coming down to kind of a a period as as I mentioned in years past when when these projects
are coming out. There's there's a certain eb and flow to the amount of work we have and we're we're we're coming into that eb where things are slowing up because we're out we're now getting construction projects up and ready for um for summer summer work. Um,
so it doesn't mean that we're now done with projects because I know that other the rest of the industry is looking at this slide and going, "What do you mean you're drying up work?" Oh, no, no, no. That's just you you'll notice there's only a couple of months worth of work on
there because as soon as that passes, we'll have more work coming through. Um, that's where Michael's point about we have a new referendum coming forward. We're now going to be working to doubly finish the old referendum, start the new
referendum, and yeah, there's a bunch of other things like um new schools or modern modernized schools that we will be working on, new transportation facilities. So, it's a mix of a lot of different things. So, please don't think that this is representative of the
program slowing down. It's just a the eb in the summer construction uh process. Next slide. on the previous page. You'll need to then insert another you go up one up one up to the finances, please for a second. You'll need to insert another one that becomes the 2024
referendum. >> That what M Evans and I spoke of yesterday was that slide might be three slides long when we get done with all the different types of data from the different pots of money. So, >> I think at this point it's just one more page and this one gets labeled 20
whatever the date was for that referendum. >> Yes, absolutely. >> Okay. Um, all right. Go ahead. >> Okay. Too much information. I may take back my comments. >> You asked for it. >> Okay. Again, this is more for you guys to see the projects that will be coming
forward as with GMPS. Either the red ones or the uh um CCNA ones. Um >> yeah, you can see um depending on the scope of work, March and April are really the last opportunity to still make summer construction goes. Um so that's why we have a little bit of lull
in in May and it'll ramp back back up again. But um some of the projects aren't dependent on summer. Some a lot of them are on having that summer work. >> Um ITV are are we broadcasting or is this all internet and is that a
studio or what are we doing now since everyone seems to be broadcasting from? Well, uh, the the the education network and they operate out of a building called South ITV and it is they I
believe they do have a fair um a small um studio where they do a lot of their uh filming of uh their content. Um, do they broadcast live? I don't I not 100% sure that they >> communications offic.
>> Yes, I'm sorry. When I say 10 again, forgive me. Uh the education network is actually part of our communications department. That's the um the way to get out the message. Uh and that's that this is just a facility
renewal in that building. Um our 2016 sales tax referendum has a number of ancillary facilities in that uh referendum. Southlight TV is one of those facilities. And is there a it's has the adjective
south. Are there is there a north or other? >> And no. And in fact, I couldn't even tell you what ITV stands for. I'm hoping it has something to do with television, but I don't I that's the name that was on the referendum in 2016. So, we keep
it as such. We know that it's the 10 building. So, Oh, yeah. Miss Evans, please, if you got some. >> It was called instructional television. So, um, as I say, I I, um, we we go by what was in the book and we just know that the building itself needs renovations. It needs the facility
upgrades that every other facility, school and ancillary facility is getting from that. So, Virginia, >> yes. Is this the building that's in front of WXCL, the PBS building? >> No, it is by Congress Middle, just
adjacent to Congress Middle. Okay. >> There's a big tower, >> right? Right. >> Right there. And as well, I think our maintenance shop is right there as well. >> Right. Okay. Yeah, that is their old >> Yes. Yes. It's It's a It's an old building. Yes.
>> Is there a proposed uh new selection committee for both architects and contractors for the next CCNA round? Increasing that. Another selection committee coming up. >> There will be. Yeah. when the solicitation goes out. Yes. >> Okay. That's right.
>> You got coar >> and that's going to be for the next referendum which is now just started. Correct. >> It's not going to align perfectly. It's not the Okay. >> No, it may be for projects in the past referendum also. It just depends on when it's
>> Yeah, it's not like it's not the split one referendum. >> Next slide. Again, sorry, I'm gonna go through these quick. These these ones you guys can read. These are development uh items. Uh next one's going to be the design GMPS.
Um please feel free to read through them. It basically aligns to those the scopes we've been talking about. The next handful of slides, um we're going to scroll through them rather fast. These are all the facility rule projects, the scope of services that are going on in each the actual update from
each month. Um, some of these things I read them last night and said, "Boy, why are we even telling the court that?" But that's that's the status update for the project. Did you know that CCUA67 and change order 2 is uh uh in processes?
Maybe you don't, maybe you don't care, but that's okay. We're identifying all the scopes. These are all photos of some of the projects that are ongoing. Keep going. Keep going. Keep going. >> 46 pages. Keep going. West Roof. That's a modernized
elementary school that's um well under construction, almost done. And um we should be open uh we anticipate it being completed around June this year. Um you'll see some of the other photos of it. Keep going. Keep going. >> One.
>> What's that? >> Same. Okay. >> Trust me, I went through them all. >> Nice slides. >> Right. Okay. And now we've gotten on to uh our historic Roosevelt phase one. There's the open roof building to the gymnasium that uh we're working on right
now. And uh the other two buildings adjacent to it. Um so those those buildings will be open um I believe later. >> I think this summer. >> Yeah, this summer. And um and then the gymnasium shortly there. >> Are these new aerial shots that you're
getting each month? >> Yes. Okay. >> Yes. because we had to look back through last month's photo. >> No, I just if they were showing us last month's photos, it wouldn't make any difference. Just >> they do tend to lag a little bit depending on the timing of the photography. But >> and one of my challenges this month was we only I think we only had three weeks
between courts this month and um for timing purposes. >> Okay. Um so you can still see it's still a mess. It's still a construction site um but heading towards completion. Okay. Village Academy Kitchen. This will be the last time you see this one. It
was on there very so very shortly and now it is going to be gone because it is now complete. Make sure they got us some good photos of that minor projects. These are some of the ones that are in design process. You'll see that North County uh it's actually design and procurement. So
North County parking lot mentioned already. Um and there that one had a few projects that are uh basically on the verge of going to construction this summer. And now you have some other minor projects, a whole plethora of uh different types
of things that are on ongoing right now. And this is why I usually make fun of Dorothy, but she's not going to make fun of her projects. Um and uh any other questions? Okay, we're on to followup. Pull up the
follow-up page. Did anybody have questions on followup? >> And thank you, by the way, for those of you who did respond. Um, we did get some of your comments and and are making those adjustments and suggestions.
>> Uh, we have nobody with comments on followup. We will just move forward. Just wanted to say thank you for the uh followup on the damage issue at historic Oh. >> Okay. All right. We're down to minutes. Anyone with any issues on the minutes?
Ah, Virginia. >> Of course I will. Um, I understand it was a short time frame between the last minute and this minute and and I know that u David was u probably not able to review the minutes.
>> Yeah, I did. >> Well, you missed some things then. >> First of all, there's no draft watermark and the minutes explicitly say that there will be a draft watermark on the minutes. >> We don't know which way to go with this.
I I do you recall last month I actually made the comment of I made them take it off and then I got in trouble and then it's not it's supposed to be on. Uh we don't know which which way is it supposed to be. >> Well anyway there's no nothing here at all that indicates these are draft and I
really really appreciate either the watermark or a header on each page that says draft. Either way will work. our challenge. Absolutely. We we appreciate that completely and again still work in progress because my challenge is that
the board expects the minutes from today's meeting be developed in the next what two days, David, and then immediately get them over to the board agenda so that they get to see him. Well, we put the draft watermark on it
the last time and I got not in trouble, but I got criticized. Don't give our school board something that says draft. Well, but it's still a draft to you guys as court, but the board wants to see what happened. And so that's
>> change the watermark to not approved by something like >> I can I can go with that. Is that Ferris? Is that um >> as long as it's identified that this is not these are not the official minutes. >> Okay.
>> Official minutes. official official minute. >> There you go. >> Michael, >> um I had sent in some proposed changes um under 4.03. I'm using the full um 856
page. Do I have page 817? >> I'm not if you're referring to the same ones that I was looking at that there's no motion and and the vote. >> There were a few of them that didn't >> at least three that missed that.
>> So, if you go down to the bottom of that page, um the third last paragraph, third line, it refers to board members. That should be committee members. >> Yes, sir. >> All right. Next page,
bottom of the page. >> David's making notes. Give him a second. While you're at the top of that page, are you going to talk about your motion? >> Which item >> you agreed to move the motion forward?
>> No. Uh for three, four, and five, those were pulled. >> Yeah, we withdrew those. And that's noted at the end of the paragraph that they were moved to postpone. >> Yes. But that requires a motion and and
the seconding and the vote from the from everyone. >> I I don't know. I think that if staff pulls it, a vote's not necessary, but there does need to be an indication, >> right? Because this right now is just a vote to postpone.
Now, if if if what you wanted to say is that >> there wasn't a vote to postpone. I I correct me if I'm wrong, but there was not a vote to postpone. That was actually my decision that based on the feedback I um Mr. Gelfan had given and
discussions was legal that um our decision was to withdraw and I don't believe we actually ever voted. No, >> I don't believe the committee ever voted on three, four or five last month. >> Correct. Uh there probably should be an indication there if nothing else the secretaries note that
>> I I I seem to recall that that we did that you did give the motion to postpone. I seconded it and we voted to postpone. Now if you agreed later to withdraw it that wasn't in the minutes. That wasn't something that happened at the at the meeting.
>> The meeting was recorded. So I think staff just go back to >> I can tell you I I if it if it was in >> as I listened to the transcript and watched the video there was no vote on this issue. >> So it's simple statement staff withdrew
the items. >> Yes. >> Well somehow there needs to be something in the minutes that indicate >> we'll change the language. Right now the thing says Mr. Gilpent move to postpone. And what we'll adjust it to say is staff
withdrew the items prior to a vote in order to review. >> I I would say leave the fact in that he moved to postpone and and then add that sentence that staff. >> Right. That's what he's going to do. >> Okay.
>> Anything else on minutes? Either of you? >> Yes. At the top of the next page on the continuation of FC6. um that does not have a vote or disposition. >> Top of the best sakes. So, go back up.
>> Yeah, you caught all the same things I did, Michael. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Over your shoulder. >> All right. Absolutely. We'll we'll we'll make that adjustment. Well, that one that one did that have a vote. >> Yeah.
>> And then um you probably should raise this before, but uh in the middle of the next page, the FC1 item number nine. >> FC9. >> Yeah, there's FC1
number nine. all the way down next page here. >> Oh, okay. >> There we go. Um I did not see on the followup um any information on this. So
for the next meeting if there can be follow on Mr. Cheshure's information >> that was noted on the followup sent out. >> All right, I'll double check.
Thank you. That's all we have. >> Anything else? Virginia, >> I'm just wondering since none of this said draft, it doesn't carry your uh message that you had on the last set of minutes. Uh are we not going to have
that on each set of minutes that you did look at them or that that it's >> I'm questioning whether I actually did look at these. If I did, I missed a lot of stuff. you. Yes, you did. I'm surprised you reviewed them. >> I am too. Just remember if if you can't
do them, send them off to me. But um >> rather, if you take that over. >> No, thank you. No, thank you. >> You did review them, but with what you were going through, uh it's fine. >> I I will do a more thorough job. Well,
no, there's no criticism implied, David, that it was a short time period for you to to have to do this during what you were going through. So, I really appreciate that we get these full minutes, and I think they're they're an
improvement over the way it was done before. So, um, just because we have comments doesn't mean we don't appreciate what staff is doing. >> You know, they're they're nice and they're complete. I question and if this branch is still on whether this is too
much information for the board to read as opposed to you know the one or two page report we used to provide >> I don't know that >> that goes back to the we're trying not to duplicate work which takes a lot of effort the message to the board and >> that's why we want to give them the full
>> understand but if this is overwhelming and they just push this aside and don't read it that's different than at least them understanding a one or two page bullet point. We had no issues except for these two items. This is a this is a a transcript.
>> Do the um other committees submit their reports? Did this side? >> Nobody's as good as us. >> No, in all honesty um they they are much more pointed short pointed and bulleted for the point that Mr. sort of is making
is that uh we we generally have a history of doing just oversimplified. >> Okay. >> Um but uh and it was duplication of work for staff. That's why we decided just to wipe out the shorter report and go with this. And I don't know how we abbreviate
this at all. Michael Gilin >> got three minutes. you know, basically the motions and how they're disposed of is it. I think uh David, if you can hear back from a couple of the board members as to
whether this is helpful uh and what their real expectations are on this and I don't think any of us would take a bridge if this was shorter. >> Mr. Sanchez and I can certainly work with the superintendent and um and I go
I work with leadership to um kind of broach the subject with some of the board members and bet whether they um appreciate it or would prefer something. >> Yeah, we want to give them something that's actually going to be useful that they will use to know what we're doing.
And if this is not it, then we need to find something that will be it. And maybe the minutes just become shorter versions. This is really like a transcript and most minutes of committee meetings are not this detailed. I'm
>> not criticizing it. I'm just saying that it's good. >> It's a lot of information. >> Always looking for improvement in the >> room who doesn't like that it's so detailed. The rest of us think it's great because it's actually a good thorough analysis of what happened and it helps us refresh what happened. No,
we remember what happened last month. Oh, poor David. Of course, you you only knew the effort it takes to go through the transcripts and the video and um pull all the details together. He does a yman's job on that. So, thank you, David, for all the effort.
>> Thank you. >> Yes. I I I would also like to say thank you and and it is a great document and David is correct. They're not officially minutes because they are so detailed. So I think if you say notes at the top from the meeting or something to that effect
or report to the board or you know >> summary or something like that report to the board, we don't have to call in minutes. We could just call. >> That's the point I was about to make. >> Good point. And and I I don't know if it adds extra
work that if you do send this to the board, is it possible to send it out to Cork at the same time that we don't wait until the next meeting? >> Well, this doesn't go to the board until now after this meeting. Correct. >> Right. >> Right.
>> That's true. That's true. >> But it >> goes from your your agenda to the board agendas. Right. >> What what I'm saying is that he will be doing the minutes or the notes from this meeting for next week. >> So, is it possible to send those out to
us ahead, you know, when you send it to the board, so we know what the board got? >> Timing is tight because David will usually get these to be sometime on Monday, usually near the end of the day, and then if I get them back to him Tuesday morning, they've got to be to the board Tuesday.
>> I appreciate that. So there's really not Well, the meeting is Wednesday. I don't think you can give the board stuff on Wednesday. >> Um, right. >> It was just a thought. >> Yeah. >> But I do appreciate I I really appreciate these notes,
which as as you stated, they're they're much fuller than minutes, but um we can call them our annotated minutes of something. >> Whatever. Yeah. Okay. We're going to need to end this. Anything else quickly?
Because we are at our time limit. >> All right. >> Move to accept the minutes >> with the corrections. >> And France seconded that. Do we need a motion? We need a vote on that then too. >> Yes. >> Quickly.
>> Porter. >> Yes. >> France. Moo. >> Yes. >> John Chesher. >> Yes. >> Wilson. >> Yes. >> Lisa Reves. >> Yes. >> Gilpin. >> Yes. Michael Guida, yes. >> Tom Burger,
>> Virginia Ferris, >> yes. >> Christopher Tomkins, >> yes. >> Thank you all for all the work you did. >> All right. Um, we haven't asked staff to
do anything special for next meeting, so we are adjourned. >> Thank you. >> U batteries.