There we go. Okay, we're good to go. Now we can start. We can start. David is now having a quorum and we're now at uh 9:06. Okay, we got our technical issues out of the way. Good morning everyone. I'm going to call the meeting to order and
we're going to start with attendance in the room and then staff will poll who's online. Dorothy Stardis. Dorothy Banoski, facilities construction. David Bropes, Con Facilities Construction. Maris Canyon, facilities construction.
Michael Guida, Cork. Holly Han, Office of the General Council. Michael Tubio, facilities construction. Uh, David Dolan, uh, chief facilities management. David Porter, Cork. Barbara Myers, construction purchasing. Prince Mor
in the corner, please. I'm Damian Stagger with the B groups construction. John Levenson Rail Enterprises representing Ziscovich and no longer representing Warden Smith. Also, uh for those of you who didn't get it, the email that went out this morning
that John Lo, I'm a superintendent with the Beck Group. Mario Rodriguez with the back group. Ray with Randolph construction group. George Perez, facilities construction. Office of Inspector General. James Campbell, chief operating officer.
James Fowl, facilities construction. Jacob Cat, Ple Construction. Colin Stevens with Bex Construction. Arson Proctor, Proctor Construction. Okay. And do our online people. Bruce Alexander present.
Jim Al. Virginia Ferris. Speak up. Speakers over here. Okay. Jim Al. Yeah, Jim Old here. John. Yeah. John Sher say I didn't hear whatever John Livingston had to say. If
you could repeat it. Oh my god. Uh John uh the the message was uh we had some sad news to report that um a colleague of all of ours uh John Loki has passed away. Uh we we uh
just received uh a lot of folks just received an email this morning advising of his passing. I'm not sure if you're familiar with John, but he's worked for a number of the construction companies in our region for a number of years. So a lot of us have come I do know
Kevin Wilkinson present. Lisa Rivas present. Michael Gilfan present. That's everyone. And
Virginia Ferris here. Yes. I'm I marked you down, Miss Ferris after you said that earlier. Okay. Thank you. And um and Miss Gloria Branch. Good morning. Morning. Check me.
Dorothy Tom Burgerer wasn't on. Did he have an excused absence? I he has not requested one to me. Okay. We might have to reach out to him after the meeting and see where he was. Okay. Um I don't have anything to report except
we have a resignation from Cork for somebody that's been on for a while, Traderick McCoy. um he has uh taken a position with the Florida AG's office and decided that either that would be a conflict or too much work and he
wouldn't be able to serve on court anymore. And as of I think two days ago, his resignation was effective immediately. So we are down one more person. So I think we're short three now at 11. We're short three, right? We have 11. I
just wanted to um also acknowledge that Mr. Sanchez was on. I didn't say that. Thank you. Thank you. Good point. That is all I have. Um anyone with a conflict of interest or been approached by a lobbyist for anything being discussed today?
Hearing none. Uh any changes to the agenda by anyone? Hearing none. Public comments hearing none. Let's go right to the consent agenda. It's a big one. FC1,
I wanted that pulled. FC2, I'd like that pulled. Kevin Wilkinson. Yep. FC3, FC4, FC5, FC6.
I wanted that pulled. FC7, FC8. Yes, treasure. Okay. FC9. FC10. Got it. FC11.
Keand. Got it. FC12. I'll pull it. Bua. Got it. Okay. Easy one. EC2.
Too late. Already marked it. Accepted. BC3. I'll pull it. BC4 PC5. Yes. Got it. PC6. PC7.
Treasure. Got it. PC8 and PC9 move items not pull to go forward. All right. Need a second on that. Second. Second
by France. Any comments, discussion? All right. Staff pus, please. Bruce Alexander agree. David Porter. Yes. France Makaban. Yes. Jim Al.
Yes. John Chasher. Yes. Kevin Wilkinson. Yes. Lisa Rivas. Lisa Rivas, you can come back to her. Maybe she's on a call. Michael Gelfan.
Yes. Michael Guida. Yes. Daniel Ferris. Yes. Revis. Lisa Revvice. Is absent. Okay. I guess we need to mark her as not voting or absent for that vote.
Yes. Uh I had pulled FC1 and it was on number eight and it was a kind of a common question I had. Um is it not a good idea for all canopies in the future that we consider part of
the budget to replace the lights when we do a renovation to get rid of the sodium vapor and go with LED? It's better lumen output. It's better longasting. It's more energy efficient. I just don't know if that pays for the cost difference of just getting rid of
the old lights like we did here. It it it does. Um there's a there's a relatively short payback when we're talking capital land um from, you know, 5 to 10 years for that kind of payback on those lights. So, it's definitely a good thing to do. Um as you know, with the the first referendum, we're kind of
limited what what was on the blue sheets of what we can do. So if it's listed as exterior lighting we've been doing. If not then we we're going to go back with the next referendum and take care of those. Okay. So the plan go all I wanted to make sure is that our plan going forward was that we're trying to replace all with LED
100%. We have a whole program established to do that. Um it answers my question. I have nothing else on PC1. Anyone else or FC1? FC1. Sorry. Need a motion. Move to go forward.
Okay. By Virginia. Need a second? Uh, got some feedback there. That Michael second. No, he actually had a question. Oh, he had a question. You had a question, Michael? Yes. Give me one moment. My apologies. I'm just having a couple of tech
problems here. Um, and I appreciate the memo that came through providing explanations from many items which helped out. Uh, with reference to item four, the conservatory item four,
the Mar modular relocation, that's just for design services. Do we have an estimate as to what the actual construction costs are going to be on that? We do. I don't have that in front of me right now. I don't know if Louise, if you're on the Yeah, she put her hand up.
Louise, we don't have a GMT proposal yet for that. Uh the contract we've been waiting to go through to redesign it contain uh confirming any estimates. Do you have a ballpark estimate based on your budget, Louise?
I I handed the project over to Michael, but I will check and get back to you for that with that. I've got a issue on that. If we're approving the design without having an idea as to what the expense is overall,
what we do know is that the redesign was for something that was not as expensive as the original design for a lift station. This this is the modular. Yeah. Yeah. Uh Mr. Gan, we actually have a an annual program
capital program to uh do modular classrooms. So we generally do have a ballpark estimate. Now they vary of course on um the number of units uh because as you can imagine if we're
putting in 15 modular classrooms at a location, right? Um, we have an economy of scale compared to two. Um, and I want I don't know. We want to say like roughly $3 $400,000. The premium is like two, but
okay. Yeah. So, um, we think it's going to be a couple hundred,000 less, but we don't have that exact information yet. But we do usually we do usually get a ROM. We almost always get a ROM of what it's going to cost before we decide to make a yay nay decision to
go forward with it. Um, I just don't have it in front of me. By the way, for the the rest of the room, ROM is a rough order of magnitude estimate. Sorry, guy in the chief seat. The restrooms were part of the original
budget for the project or is this a It's a change also. So, the the restrooms, they're they're more of a convenience factor. They're they weren't code required. So when we started the mods, we decided not to do the restrooms. And as we looked at it
farther with the the students that were going to be out there, it wasn't practical for them to have to go into the inside the school. So we decided to add these restrooms on uh these are done on an ad hoc basis. So we typically don't add restrooms unless they're code required. Um but in this case, we felt
like it was necessary. Um so how does that work then? It's on an ad hoc basis for you know determining which schools get them and which don't based on the need based on the travel
distance because just because you meet code it may be inconvenience what what students are in those spaces um are the ESC students what their ages are um all those kind of factors weigh into um whether or not we justify putting the extra expense for the restrooms in
I will say I I do have a concern that if we're doing it for some schools, why don't we do it for other schools? Um, and I'm not certain what the criteria is
also in terms of distance and difficulty for students. Do we differentiate by age group class uh as to whether there's automatically uh beyond code? Yeah, beyond code. Yes, that's one of
the factors. Um obviously the code straightforward whether we need them or not. Right. If they're needed, we put them in. If they're not, we typically don't. Um this was one of the cases that we looked at it based on the age of the students that were going in that space and the distance they do have to travel to the restrooms. It made sense to put the restrooms in there.
So typically we would like to do that analysis up front but this came after the fact once we got into the design and talked to the principal and looked at it further um we decided it was worth it and this is a K8 so it's at the time at the initial initiating of the project it
could have been anything and then as as I said we figured out later on who the student population was going to use it and the need for it. Well, this is currently an an elementary school K5, right? K6.
It's K. K8, wasn't it? Well, it was built as a K5 with the opportunity to expand it to a K8. And it has expanded over the years to a K8. So, we're talking about adding forth,
sixth, seventh, and eighth graders. else shares my mind on the equity level on this. Um, you know, this school does have a rather strong parent base advocating for their
students that we don't always see in in other schools. And you know my concern is especially as this has come well after the initial design of the proposal that we're we're adding it. I understand you know having
once had you know many centuries ago a child in uh in elementary school a desire to have bathrooms closed. But um I'm concerned being added at the design stage and that this is not a
district-wide standard. Michael, I just find it tough to have a district-wide standard when we're putting modulars sometimes up against the school and sometimes they're halfway out into the ball fields. Um there there kind of is no standard. We put them where we can.
Most of them though are within relatively short walking distances to No, no, no, not at all. Many of them are out beyond the play the you know let's say the playground area. So you might actually have an entire
playground area in between the main building and the opportunity to put those modulars in. So it's it varies as as Mr. Porter said it varies on on site but very rarely do we get to um log
locate them directly adjacent to a building. So in this case, where are these going? Are these going on the like the northeast your northwest corner of the site? Because I believe that there's a
field on that corner and it's it's parking lot on the south side. We have a plan. Um Louise does uh it's in the very center of the campus where we have no access to restrooms. for out
by Lifefield. Um, and the classrooms, the buildings that are close to it, the restroom is quite a walk from that center area. So, we would they requested the restrooms right there so they would not have to escort these students way across campus to to access these
restrooms, which are not within the 200 foot walking distance. If you look, if you do an aerial view of the campus itself, the ball fields, this these are right here close to those ball field that's out there or that playfield that they have.
Yeah, it is on the side of the classroom areas. I'm actually looking at an over right now at the uh at the site and I see in the center of the campus there's walkway
and what looks like a cemented gap. Is the Are these portables going on the cemented area or on the ball field? No, the in the very center there's a grassy area. Yes, circular grassy area.
Yep. And there seems to be an entrance to the school just to the east of there. Michael, we have a big agenda as you know, so I think you can go ahead and object to this if you want, but I'd like to move this along. I'd just like to make a comment that
there was a recent code change. Um, previously the code only allowed single restrooms in grades K through two and it was recently changed so that older kids now may have a single restroom and
that's kind of what drove this. Um, the school wanted them but we weren't allowed to provide them and so now we are providing them. So, so in the previous code the kids would have had to have walked 200 feet plus over to the other restrooms. Correct.
Wow. So making it district-wide standard is kind of going retroactive right now. That was easier than providing rollerblades to all the kids. Um also have a question with reference to 11 Maluca and the security gates.
Yeah. What's the question? What was your question on that, Michael? On this one, this was an after the fact fire marshall request to the gate, not by uh the school police.
No, we don't control the fire. Martha, I know. That's why I'm asking that, just to confirm. So, we offer the the fire departments, AHAs a courtesy review of all of our projects to come through and walk and inspect it and um provide uh recommendations and if they if we feel
like it's warranted, then we make that change. So, we are the AJ, but we do provide that courtesy. They're the ones that are going to be servicing the school. So, all righty. Um on 22, the Chuck Shaw Shaw School, what is an AR wall mount? B A R.
It's just a small AC unit that hangs on the wall like you'd find in a modular unit or something like that. It's an exterior wall-mounted box. It's an air conditioning unit. All righty. Those are the questions I
have. Thank you. Okay. Anything else on FC1? Need a motion forward. Okay. Virginia, need a second. Second. All right. Any other comments or discussion? Okay. Staff pus, please. Bruce
Alexander, yes. David Porter, yes. France Makavo, yes. Yes. John Chesher, yes. Kevin Wilkinson, yes. Lisa Revis,
yes. Michael Gelfin, no. Michael Guida, yes. Virginia Ferris. Yes. Michael, we need your uh brief comment
for the no. Uh with reference to the uh district's policy on modular restrooms. Um not convinced that we have an equitable policy on it. Okay. Thank you.
And for staff, we usually like the um negative or the dissenting comments to be noted in the board report. Yes. So that when the board gets that, they'll know all sides of the opinions by cork. Okay. FC2 Kevin, you pulled that.
Yes. I just was uh looking at it. My dad used to have a saying, when you're in the Navy and you're new on a ship, shut your mouth. So I've relied heavily on Mike and uh and John Cheshire and others, and I appreciate that. Um, on this one though, the reason I'm asking is it seems to me that there's a simple
issue and that is if there's an allowance item theoretically for a GC and for half a million dollars and the GC only uses 400 that the contract should clearly tell you the answer to whether the GC is entitled to overheaded profit. And and I'm asking Holly
actually in a way is isn't it easy to have at least a sentence in all the standard contracts to define the issue? Yes or no? And uh in that way you don't have to ever revisit the issue. Well, when we when I reviewed this, I believe the contract is clear. Um we
could certainly in light of this particular situation add an additional sentence to clarify it. Um but when I reviewed everything, I felt that it it was clear um that they're not entitled to work that they they're not entitled
to overhead and profit. But we certainly could uh go back and for future contracts add an additional sentence to really spell it out. I knew you'd have a good answer. Thank you. Um the the other uh the other issue though is and this is a general issue and I shouldn't digress without
permission but um is there such a concept of materiality and accounting such that when we're looking at these things we have a ACU number three for $342. Is there is there ever a policy where Cork doesn't have to review something
less than $10,000 or so? Um we have 44 people or 38 people at this meeting online anyway and it's just why are we talking about $342.50 50 cents. Is there a threshold and I'll defer to Mike and people have been on
the board longer that the district can do what they want to the board and it doesn't have to be referred to Cork if it's not less than say $10,000 issue unless it's what I call a precedent issue or if you do something small bad with a small amount then in litigation later they can use that as a course of
dealings against you. That's just a question. It doesn't exactly pertain to this specific topic. that yeah there's no policy that says that that we can do that but I would be open to that you know I wouldn't and Mr. Yes, we are, as you probably have heard
some of the discussions, we have been sta on staff level, we've been working on um a number of uh policy procedure and contract changes. Um we're still in the midst of that. We're work working with we're expecting to have a uh
feedback from uh a an audit review company uh that's going to help us in including some of our as a matter of fact we mentioned even the policy this morning about cork. Um certainly it's something that we can consider including
and being more specific. I I think it makes perfect sense if there is the opportunity to be very very specific. Um I just know that uh in our in our experiences as well um there's a lot of
just varying justifications for it. So um but should we choose to add language into our contract andor if our policy uh we would certainly bring it back to court for your feedback as well though
it wouldn't be blind. Michael. Um I think both uh areas of inquiry are well taken. Um on the contract review, you know, David, you the chair has been very keen on asking questions regarding
that and it may, you know, be appropriate to take a look at that on the threshold for review. Um, I have agonized in many of my client meetings over $100 budget changes and the amount of time that everyone's around the
table. Um, I we have discussed at many point the different thresholds for review and staff approvals of projects. And as much as I my eyes glaze at a very small number, um I think for the
public's perception, uh requiring at least approval to a consent calendar probably makes sense, uh because there's a different level of review at this stage. And it's not just in terms of
uh efficiency of the committee itself but to provide reassurance to the public. Uh even though a the causes for cork's creation which are decades ago many staff generations between us and
the relationship between the public and staff has improved tremendously and there's there is trust where there wasn't before. Very good. Okay. Anything else on FC2? Um Kevin. Yes, sir. Yeah. Yeah. I just wanted to respond. I
guess the answer is is as I say the $342 issue is as a member and I think Bruce has also articulated do we have a great deal of trust in the district and and to have them report about $342 in a meeting with 40 people. That's why
I'm saying, you know, a threshold might be necessary and would say we can trust the district on the small, as I say, unless it's a precedent, unless they use that little number to then argue next time this is the precedent for a bigger number. Yeah. Um I I agree with Kevin on this
one. I think that uh 10,ou I was actually going to propose $25,000 um given that we have jurisdictional um increases that have occurred over the decades, but $10,000 I think for purposes of this discussion is more than
reasoned and reasonable. and my request of the um of of those involved um in terms of uh making this kind of decision to bring back to uh Cork for approval, I'm just giving you a preemptive that
should there be a decision that there's a $10,000 threshold absent a policy issue that can give rise to disputes. utes uh potentially
um on matters irrespective of their fiscal value that um I I would be strongly in favor of supporting a 10 a $10,000 um threshold for um our approval. And I
I don't think in my judgment I don't think that that would violate the public's trust um as it relates to Cork's um mission to uh ensure appropriate expenditures. Um,
and if any of us thought that any item that had a value of less than $10,000 that was reflected in any of the uh minutes that we would be receiving in advance of these um live live virtual
sessions um that we had a concern that that could um be a poor precedent. we would always have an opportunity to uh state an objection to it, but that as a default um approval of um any
expenditure of less than $10,000 um I'm strongly in favor of that for the reasons that I've expressed. Thank you. I I'll just question why don't you just let it go to consent? We don't have to review it. If if any of these items you
think are acceptable, $10 to $5,000, just let it go to consent without pulling it and it doesn't get discussed and take time. Sounds like a great idea. Virginia, uh, yes. I just wanted to comment um and
support Michael's uh comment about the history of of our oversight committee. I started serving on back in the early 90s when it was called the Admiral's blue ribbon committee and it was formed because there was a lot of questions
about what was going on in the school district construction department. It then morphed into this um uh oversight committee. We've done a great deal to to uh boost the um perception and and the
actuality of the trust in our department. I have great trust in the the construction department, but I do think we have to be very careful because we did work very hard to build the public's trust.
So, I just wanted to make that comment. Okay, we're back to FC2 where I need a motion for that. I'll make a motion. Second, second by Virginia, first by Michael Guida. Any further on FC2?
All right. staff. Bruce Alexander, yes. A Porter, yes. Brent Makaboo, yes. Jim Al, yes. John Chesher, yes. Kevin Wilkinson, yes.
Lisa Revis, yes. Michael Gilfan, yes. Michael Guida, yes. Virginia Parish, yes. Okay, FC6. I pulled that one. And my
question on that, it's just funny in this particular agenda, a number of generator project delays and didn't cost anything with zero dollars, but just seemed like there's a consistent issue with generators and I was hoping that
staff understood that and had some type of plan of action to kind of minimize our future delays with generators. So, I will tell you that um the district made a decision at some point to move the generators inside from a longevity standpoint. um they
last longer, but when you move a generator inside, it's very finicky about passing the test required low bank tests and things to have to make sure everything's optimal. And sometimes we run into situations where we have to and and it's not it's it's one of those things that no matter what you put on
paper, when you get in the field, air flow is a little bit different and things don't aren't exactly the way it's designed. So, um, we have had a few schools where we've had to go through there and and cause some delays, and we got it worked out, but it's a lot of trial and error to get that to work out where it functions properly.
Code requirements have changed. The generator we used to be put in a space that it met code. Now, the clearance is required. No longer It needs a gymnasium site, right? It does. It does. And And we end up with all those late shifts.
But once we get it dialed in, we we test them every year. And once we get that in, they they generally pass every year. So, um it just takes some effort that caused some delays. And um our contractors work really well with us, you know, being out there for a lot of hours trying to get those worked out and not not not charging basically. It's
part of their scope. So, we're very appreciative of that. Yeah. Okay. Just a note, uh never design an indoor generator with one exterior wall. That's just just a common note. Performs a whole lot better with two exterior walls. Yeah. to get that air flow through because it overheats and you got issues.
Exactly. All right. Anything else on FC6? If not, need a motion. Move to go forward. Just one question, Mr. Chair. On that, it appeared that there were four plan revisions
on that which seem to be excessive. I have the right one. um look at there. I believe that was part of the same issue that the plan revisions were to um try some trial and error basically on that generator room
getting some things to work to the engineers to comment on that. But you know I always thought that you three and you're out. Yeah. The issue here is that these are going into existing rooms. So, um it's a lot
easier obviously when you design something from scratch to to make those accommodations. But yeah, I wasn't real upset with the revisions, Michael. It was pretty common for working out something in an existing room.
All righty. Thank you. Okay. Motions on the table. Yes, motion's on the table. We had a first and a second. And any other comments on FC6 staff? Who was the second? I'm sorry. Uh,
who who was the second? I'll second the motion. Michaela. Okay. All right. Uh, staff. Bruce Alexander. Yes. David Porter. Yes. Friends Makavo. Yes.
Jim Ald. Yes. John Chasher. Yes. Kevin Wilkinson, yes. Lisa Revis, yes. Michael Gelfan, yes. Michael Guida, yes.
Virginia Ferris, yes. Okay. FC8 John Chesher. Yes. This is got regarding LEGO and returning overhead and profit on allowances. Am I not correct that typically we don't
allow overhead and profit on allowances in the GMP? That's correct. Typically we do not. This one was put was approved that way. Um so that's why it's a little bit of an oddball. Did Cork review this particular one?
Um now this is a re-roof project. It was it was a term contract. Are you are you saying that the overhead and profit should not have been in the contract? Correct. That's Yeah, that's correct. I mean, you there's different ways to do it as long
as it's consistent from the start when you do your GMP to when you have the reconciliation, it it technically works dollar-wise. So, it comes out to the same number, but typically we don't have that in there. Okay. I'm wondering if um other LEGO
projects are going against the norm and including overhead and profit on their allowances in their contracts. I don't know. You know, we we generally have a pretty thorough review process for all of our GMPs, but occasionally something slips through. Um, like I
said, the math works out to be the same, but but typically we don't include the overhead on the allowances. When I do a reconciliation, um, change order review, I always go back to the GMP to verify whether or not
it was included or not. Yeah, I don't know how you do that. I've tried to do that and the contractor doesn't make it clear if the overhead and profit was included on the allowance. So, how how would we know unless he offers it?
Um, basically I go through the numbers and they usually have what the percentages for overhead and profit. So, I calculate it to find out which numbers were included in their calculation of
overhead and profit. In this particular case, if you add up, they showed their divisions one through 33 and then they showed over allowances and then they showed overhead and profit. And when I added it all up um and used their
percentage, it that the number they had for overhead and profit was including the allowances. Okay, good catch. But let's just make sure at least on LEGO in the future that they are consistent and do not show overhead
and profit on allowances. Those are my only comments. We've had some other contractors do it as well. Um and fortunately we have caught it in the past. I can't say that we've got every time but but I do check it every time. So I'm pretty
confident that we we've got most of them. Um, we have lots and lots of discussions in Cork about overhead and profit. I mean, I would just love to see us get a policy that standardizes overhead and profit for what's allowed, what's not allowed, and it goes as an
addendum or something, an attachment to every contract we've got. So that you know, Darthothy, if it's not you here catching it because you've got all this experience and somebody else doesn't, it shouldn't be something somebody catches. It should actually be a document the contractor has to give us. simplified
and we have discussed that and Michael and his team are working on that in the progress of of having a GMP guidelines procedure that we can hand out to all the CM so that everybody's playing on the same role and that we're reviewing it the same way. But it then needs to go back to reference the contract to make sure that what we're telling them for overhead and
profit is actually backed up in a document they've signed. We just had that conversation yesterday. As a matter of fact, the three of us were together h working out whether it's a a form or it's a language in the contract or a combination. A combination. Yeah, Kevin,
you're muted. Kevin, you're muted. Sorry. Um, legally speaking, it seems that every contract that has a GMP with a half a million dollar allowance always includes overhead and profit. I I can't even imagine how the GC would say no.
the allowance. Sometimes allowances could be millions of dollars and to me it's always going to include impi implied overhead and profit. So getting the GC to say it one way or another is is counterproductive because we're the policy is there is no overhead and
profit. So they don't get it because it's part of the GMP somewhere in their overhead and profit is incorporated and incorporated on allowance items and nonallowance items. So number one is we don't have to uh if we have clear terms we don't have to struggle with this
anymore but asking the GC whether it is or not seems it it it seems to me it is and the GCs will always try to do that well they they earn the overhead and profit as they use that allowance. So that's why the math works out to be the same. So if it's not included at the
beginning, as they use it, they earn overhead and profit become because it becomes part of the GMP, right? And unused is not is not Okay, I'm on the same page. Thank you. Yeah, as long as that's spelled out clearly in the contract that we can point to and say, "No, you're not getting paid overhead profit
on allowances you didn't use." And it is. Okay. In the clear, it is. It's just whether or not you put in up front and then take it back or you never put it in there till they use it. So it said okay. Anything else on FT8? Move to
Okay. Thank you. Need a second. Second. Second by John. Any other comments, discussion? All right. Staff. Bruce Alexander. Yes. David Porter. Yes. Brent Makaboo. Yes. Jamal.
Yes. John Chesher. Yes. Kevin Wilkinson. Yes. Lisa Revis. Yes. Michael Gelfan. Yes. Michael Guuit. Yes. Virginia Parish.
Yes. Okay. FC10. Michael Gelfand. Get to my page here. for this one uh at the Roosevelt. Was this part of
the original program design? Yes, this was going to be a direct owner purchase for the equipment. Um and as we got into this, um so it's really zero dollars. It's coming out of a different part of the budget. Um it's actually under our budget. Um the we decided that there's there's substantial coordination
that needs to happen with the um because of the nature of the equipment. So we decided to put it through the CM so they can get their subcontractors involved and make sure that's fully coordinated for the install. All right. Thank you. Seems like good change. Appreciate it.
Any anything else on FC10 by anyone? John? Yeah, I'm the one that uh had the comments about the low bid and clarifications to the bid document or the their bids and I don't like having to ask these questions
and and reviewing these. The low bidder on this I I forget what it was. He won the bid by a hundred bucks or something. There should be clear documentation in the backup that shows that the bids were compared appropriately and there and like I say,
documentation that says yes, my bid includes this or no, my bid doesn't, but it's $7,500 adjustment and it wasn't included. If it is included in there, then we won't have these questions. But, um, I'll take the CM's word at it that
he did, uh, do a fair evaluation. Thank you. There's there's actually a leveling sheet in there that shows that $7,500 and some other other leveling that they did. Unless I'm missing something. Yeah, I understand the leveling. Okay.
But who provided the leveling numbers? Um, that was my question. Was it the the biders or was it just the uh CM saying, "Okay, I think it should be $7,500 for cleanup and remove little cartons." I I forget the other things right now, but
they said yes, they got those numbers from the um bidder. Will then include it in your pricing. Understood. Okay. Anything else on FC10? Need a motion. Move to go forward.
A second. A second. Second by France. Any other comments that Bruce Alexander? Yes. David Porter, yes. France Makabu, yes. Jim Al, yes. John Chesher,
yes. Kevin Wilkinson, yes. Lisa Revis, yes. Michael Gelfan, yes. Michael Guida, yes. Virginia Ferris, yes. Okay. FC11. Michael Gelfand.
Just a question as to what's almost $400,000 as to the reasonleness of these expenses for fencing and and the dugout. I'm sorry. The the as far as whether
it's we should do it or not or whether or not the price is fair. I'm not quite following the price fair. I have a it's a very very large amount of money and it is not I don't have the ability to evaluate
the expense. So we our estimators evaluated it and determine if fair and reasonable and we also bounced it off. We have a fence vendor that does work for us on contract and he was not quite but almost double that cost to do that. Um it gets into
some complic it's the it's because it's the back stop, right? It's a very high fence that needs to meet wind loads and has a deep foundation and there's muck out there which further complicates it. And in addition to the back stop, it's all the outfield fencing that goes with that. So that's relatively straightforward, but the back stop is the complicated
part. So we we got a couple different checks on it and it checked out. Um, but we said the same thing that just seems expensive and verified and that's going right. Yeah, I had the same thought, Michael. I'm thinking, wait a minute. Chain link galvanized fencing. What?
Yeah. Even anticipating wind load and and perhaps we ought to be designing these things to break away because the cost for the wind load doesn't make sense and we just rebuild
them after a storm. That's not an option. Yeah. Because then you have flying debris around students which is not a good idea. Well, I don't think you're going to be having students in the school when there's a hurricane.
No, but you don't want the backs stop in the middle of the cafeteria when the storm recedes. And we have storms that blow up on any given day that not particularly in a hurricane. That just is it's a summer storm and winds blow up and non-hour winds will knock that down and send it across the the yard. Yeah.
And we don't have that option because it needs a building permit and the building code requires wind load calculations and wind load resistance. So that's not for us to decide. I do appreciate your perspective. You're you know, you are right. Yes, maybe maybe we put in escrow some money to
cover the replacement each time. It you do have valid point there. But yes, unfortunately we are bound by the code. Anything else on that, Michael? I think he's muted. He's muted. Appreciate the words of sympathy and
joining in on the questioning and um move forward. You want to make a motion on that? I'll let someone else. Okay. A motion on move to go forward. And I think it's a really good point, Michael, about the cost.
Need a second on FC11. Second. Second by France. Staff Bruce Alexander. Yes. David Porter. Yes. France Makaboo. Yes. Jim Al. Uh oh.
Did we lose everybody? We might have lost everybody. Did we lose the meeting? Oh, there we go. Hello there. We're still here. You may not want us. John Chesher, yes. Kevin Wilkinson, yes.
Lisa Revis, yes. Michael Gelfin, yes. Michael Guida, yes. Virginia Fish, yes. Jim Al. Yes. Okay. FC12 Mike Guida. Um if you go to
page two in the page three, it's um under reason for change. The last sentence, it says plan changes uh were not available at the time of purchase order.
um used to close the construction services. So does that mean that they bid the project without plans and if so would they use to bid on the project and have did we approve changes? Yeah. So they bid they did a hard bid.
It was a hard bid project. It wasn't the CM. So they bid the initial set of drawings and then this change came after the fact of the coordination. That probably could be worded a little bit, but it was like a one parking lot was added to the to the project, right? No, no, it wasn't a whole parking lot. It was a connection, a stair connection
and a drive connection to the other lot was added. Okay. But the the whole parking lot was the scope to begin with. That's correct. So, had they understand what the scope was? Who defined that? Was it on it was on the drawing? Plans were revised.
Okay. They were revised. Well, when they say the plan changes, the revisions that came through after Okay, that's all I needed was clarify. Mike, I mean, Michael Gelfand um I was trying to find the minutes and
recall we had an extensive discussion on the parking lots by the golf course maybe two or three meetings ago. Yes. wondering if this was part of that and I know that there was consternation about
it but I think we move forward. Someone referenc Yeah, we did discuss it two or three meetings ago where they were merging two parking lots I believe at the back of the school um and there was an elevation difference so there was a ramp that was
needed to get to connect the two lots. Um, this is all part of that job, right? Design services contracted. I think that's what I brought up there. Well, I think it may have been the design services for the addition. It was under design services, Michael, that this was first discussed.
Yeah. And we I now it's coming back. We did have a question as to, you know, what would be the estimated cost when it was going to be completed. Um, so there are some other elements in here that were not directly to the the ACUA
change. There were some unforeseen conditions also in this one. Okay. All right. Anything else on FC12? Anyone need a motion? Motion to go forward. Second. Second.
Second by Mike. Alexander, yes. A Porter, yes. France Makaboo, yes. Yes. John Chesher, yes. Kevin Wilkinson, yes. Lisa Revis,
yes. Michael Gelfan, yes. Michael Guida, yes. Virginia Ferris, yes. All right. PC1. Michael Gelfand. Um, on this one, a couple of questions.
Um, you see my my handwriting here. My apologies. My notes are just not as uh efficient this time over as they have been in the past. I lost my pen
on this. the change order to get you a new pen. Yeah. Under the threshold. That's right. The door threshold. Can we pass on this one and come on back and I'll get my notes better in order. My
All right. PC2 Mike um on the on the first page I think the description calls out for roof replacement. Um was there anything in the documents that the insulation was provided
as part of uh the re- roof? Um I see it's built up but does it built up include the insulation? Because I remember on the FC1 there was a roof at Christa McCulla that had a change order. We had to add insulation in the roof.
And I just don't want a repeat. I'm looking at this. Is this a repeat of a I would have to look at this. We have so many roof projects going on right now. I could be wrong. I pro probably am. But the Chris McAuliffe was this very specific issue. It was the Wasn't it
like the two deck the two a couple of them for Chris McCulla. Where is I think this is just a standard design. So, there's two buildings um installed new uh asphalt uh roof uh builtup roofing uh
over existing roof assembly roof cans, new flashing. Yeah, Michael, I think it's got to include insulation because it says remove moisture damage roofing down to the metal deck. So, this means you got to put new insulation if you're down to the deck. Thank you, David. And is it defined which insulation value that is?
Yes, it is. When we when we take it all the way down the deck, we predefine how much needs to go back. The question mark is when we don't what is there? That's when we have to verify from an engine standpoint. You want to equal it or make it better. We typically make it better. Yeah. All right. And uh you're also replacing
the mechanical roof curbs which affects the AC. Is this going to be done during uh there was some verbage in there. It could be done day daytime or or nights. So on our roofing projects, they typically work after the school leaves during the day. So they'll come in the evenings and do some work and every day
they make sure it's buttoned up and then they take advantage of the weekends and then holidays to work longer hours. So there's flexibility there. Um to to replace the curb, they got to they got to crane off the the rooftop. They don't do that when students are it. Correct. Get it all done and put it back on. So
it's it's probably an all day thing, half a day thing just for one. Very good question because that's essentially that's the challenge that we have. It's not just well let the roofer go and take care of it. It's got to be meticulously managed. We don't certain things can be done during school occupation and
so let know that that that's the roofing companies. Yeah. That's a they were going to use elementary school students and lift it up. We decided that was too much of a liability. No, and I know I'm knocking on flat plastic now, but we actually
have a really good group of roofing companies bidding on the projects these days. We've been getting a good mix of companies uh that are are bidding on the last few years. We haven't had any complaints from a school of anything and and that's pretty rare for some of our
say they were good companies. I'm just talking about the past we had a company. This is called Campe. a lot of roofs, do they? Okay. I don't remember seeing their name. Yeah, Campon's done lots and lots of roofing.
Okay. We're They're new with us, more recent, but yes, they've done a lot of roofs already. I've worked with them for years, so Yep. All right. So, I I'll I'll push to move this forward. Okay. Got a motion on PC2. I need a second on PC2. Second. Second by Virginia.
Second. Yep. Got it. Virginia. Oh yeah. All right. Staff, do PC2 for us, please. Bruce Alexander, yes. David Porter, yes. France Makaboom, yes. Jamal,
yes. John Chesher, yes. Kevin Wilkinson, yes. Lisa Revis, yes. Michael Gelfan, yes. Yes. Virginia Parish, yes. All right, let's go back to PC1. You
ready, Michael Gelfund? Yeah. Um, on Perez, there were two certificates of insurance. Uh, I just want to confirm the one at the end of the application was that that was intended to update an earlier one that
had expired coverages. Correct. That's that's what we we've started doing. if there's any questions regarding any of the documentation um during the review process. We leave the original application stand as as is and then you know we'll add any emails to
show you that correspondence and then upload any additional documents. All right. Thank you for catching the expired coverages on MBR. There appear to be three lawsuits with underground utilities apparently being hit. two with
Bell South and then there was a third. Um I just I know it happens from time to time, but three of them um becomes a a potential warning signal if you would. How close together were the three?
Yeah. I mean, if it was the same job Oh. um you know, you know, then perhaps I'd understand, but you know, with the separate lawsuits, there would seem to be separate jobs. I I don't know, just
looking at it. Not really. Anything else, Michael? um any response or to look to see, you know, what was going on there? I I'm just looking at that as being a trend. That might be a
I refer to them to make the business decision. I'm not part of the review committee. Yeah. I mean, it depends on your volume of work and and every lawsuit, as you know, it's very specific circumstances that we don't if it looks like it's a a a major issue with fraudulent activity
and stuff like that, then we look into it. But if it's just general lawsuits, um, we make a business decision. If it looks excessive, then we look into it. If not, then we push it on. So there's not a hard and fast rule of what that is. Sure. You have a company doing more volume work, they're going to have more
lawsuits just by nature, you know. I think they only had like six lawsuits listed and I'm not familiar with this vendor at all as to whether they're high volume or not. it didn't seem to be a large number of lawsuits overall.
Uh MBR's been around for a long time. I've worked with them back in the early 2000s and so um I have no problem with with them when I worked with them on previous projects. Michael. Oh, Michael, I would think if they had
three on only on one job and if they've been around for 20 plus years and that's all they've got, it could have just been one bad backhoe operator. All right. Um and then on the uh um PNG u again I'm not familiar with them but I
did unless they are a large contractor they did have a substantial number of lawsuits they are they are a large PNG is a large company is is that the PNG was the one um they are a large company down in Miami they
do a lot of work with um Miami Dade school district and uh Broward our uh school district a little bit. So they they they are substantial. So there is the possibility that they may have quite a number of lawsuits just over over the
course of doing business. All right. Thank you. All right. Need a motion on PC1 to go forward. All right. Got a first. Need a second. Second. Second by France. Staff PC1.
Bruce Alexander. Yes. David Porter, yes. France Makaboo, yes. Jim Ald, yes. John Chasher, yes. Kevin Wilkinson, yes. Lisa Ravis, yes. Michael Gelfan,
yes. Michael Guida, yes. Virginia Farish, yes. PC3, Mike Guida. Well, my comments were the same as PC2. Uh, I want to make sure that you guys have that coordinated and um, if it has
insulation on the roof on this one. Um, and this one also has a building that has a roof recovery. Um, is there a a standard that the school board has on how many times they could recover a roof before it's got to be taken down to the
deck? I don't know. I believe it's one, but I don't know. One. So, okay. Um, but that's all I had. You guys answered it from the PC2. So, I'll move this forward. Yeah. Um, I just want to make a general
comment that I was impressed and pleased with the different roofing bids we're getting and how tight most of them are. Yeah. Um, this is way more roofing interest than we've seen in a long time and tighter bids, which means that, you
know, they're sharpening their pencils and we're giving them the right RFP information to allow them to bid tight. All right. Anything else? All right. Got a first by Virginia. Need a second by someone on PC.
Second by Mike Guida. Staff Bruce Alexander. Yes. David Porter. Yes. France Makabu. Yes. Jim Ald. Yes. John Chesher. Yes. Kevin Wilkinson. Yes. Lisa Ravis. Yes.
Michael Gelfan. Yes. Michael Guida. Yes. Virginia Ferris. Yes. All right. PC5. John Chesher. Yes. Excuse me. Yes. This is a Morgante uh GMP for Jupiter Community High
School. And I had asked a question uh or I made a comment that the CM did not provide a list of names of the personnel that they had assigned to the project during construction. And the response I got back wasn't really a response.
Um so I'm I'm going to object to this one. We need to know who the personnel are that's going to be on the project. We use their personnel when we uh review the RFP, make the selection, and we need
to ensure that they're using the same personnel that they propose during the selection process. This wasn't a selection, was it? Was this one of the uh No, this was um this was bid. This was bid out. Hard bid.
No, no, no. It was RFP. RFP. All right. So, it did have a selection process. Yes. that during the selection process they would have presented the staff for this project. Yes. Are they supposed to do that within the GMP then?
Yes. Yes, they are. The the contract requires them to list the personnel. That should be it should be in the GMP and as John's saying it's not. They don't have. So they may need to do an addendum to their GMP just to give us that
information to actually comply with the contract. But and I'm forgive me I'm having not really looked at the the the backup. Do they give the names of the positions that they were they give the position not the names? They give the positions not the names.
Superintendent. No, that's a cooper. Yeah. They just list positions. They don't give us people. Do they need to give us the people that matches up with the RFP or get approval from staff for for a change?
It's certainly um something we can um request from them and uh um you know going forward. Yeah, requested that when I made the comment um on Monday morning was Dave it was requested and they provided it.
George Perez has indicated that. Yeah. So, so, uh, Morganti was contacted and the response by Brett Martin was the same staff that was, uh, in their response to the RFP are the same staff
that's going to be used in this project. They just did not include their name on the GMP, just include the titles. There are more people listed on uh exhibit D um than were included in their RFP,
though. And the the RFP um said the Cooper superintendent was to be determined. I mean, here we are two weeks away from starting this project and we don't know who the SBE superintendent is going to
be, apparently. Well, staff can certainly make sure that we demand and insist on the names that were on the original exhibit D, but um and and we can certainly get clarity um who the person is from Cooper. um
despite the fact that that's not any compliance issue because that if they said to be determined, we're going to we're going to have to evaluate that person's resume anyway and make sure are they qualified. So, we will do so prior to construction and
make sure that they are um satisfactory to us and if not, as you said, we will demand somebody more suitable. I I do know on this one that this project got delayed through the GMP review. So, um that's all the more reason to confirm who's going to be on the project, but um we'll make sure we
get a full list from them. Wanted to um note that there, excuse me, this is a renovation project and there's no allowances in the GMP. I just wanted to confirm that. That seems kind of strange.
They confirm that. No allowances. They have contingency. Did you all hear that? By the way, John, did you hear that response? Okay. I would say they're exhibit D which they list at least a dozen different positions they need to define with
people people. We we will acquire that for for Okay. Anything else on that, John? Um Michael Gelfand, did they provide a reason as to why they
weren't submitting The reason was they provided the uh position name and it was the same staff as in the uh RFP response for the uh project executive project
manager. At the time they were not sure who they were going to assign as the uh superintendent because they were being engaged to do the precon phase first. that construction would come six, nine, 12 months later and at that time they
would adjust. So they not for for lacking they have not told us that they didn't submit them for any particular reason but as as mentioned earlier we will get clarity um
and validate uh all the the names of the people that will be running the project in in in coordination with that exhibit D on the RFP in addition to the superintendent John who else should we be identifying all
all of them all the positions listed. Yeah. On page. Yeah. It's exhibit It's exhibit D in the uh the cork items and uh in their GMP and that has at least a dozen different positions listed. So, what we're what we're asking staff is to fill in the
blanks with real bodies and make sure they're in alignment with the RFP suggested name, right? they need to either match up with the RFP, which was an accepted staff, or staff has to, you know, look at the resume of who they're substituting to
make sure they're acceptable. And that, and that happens all the time. Yeah. Where, you know, all of a sudden a superintendent leaves a company and he was listed to be working on the project and they have to substitute a new superintendent. Well, staff reviews that to make sure the substitution is equally
or better qualified. Mr. Sanchez, just ask the question to Dave and Michael. Can we can we commit to getting that list to uh the court members by the end of the day? Absolutely. It's easy enough thing to do, right? Yeah, this is not this is not hard.
Yeah, absolutely, Mr. Sanchez. We will have that um immediately. Okay. Anything else by court members on uh PC5? Yeah, just one other real quick thing. I don't see how they can develop their CMV without knowing the names of the and the
salaries of the people that they're going to have on the project. But that's all I had. I'll make a motion that court move uh PC5 forward to the board without objection. Okay. Need a second. Second. Second by Virginia. Any other comments,
questions? I would move to amend that. uh subject to uh the contractor providing a list of uh names and that it being acceptable to staff.
I'll second that amendment. I don't I I No, the the item as is is submitted is acceptable from a from staff's perspective. the item that is submitted is acceptable. We
we will validate that either the names that they submit are the same or better. I don't want to have to commit a our way of trying to validate.
I come back with something. I can't get you all together to to confirm. So, you're taking my word for it that as I've said, we will make sure that the names are acceptable. There is no by adding this stipulation on the motion
makes it impossible for me to validate for each and every one of the 10 of you that I have done so and in a manner that is acceptable to you. I think you may have misunderstood the reason that it's acceptable to staff.
Acceptable to staff. court. Well, but it that goes without saying, how do I validate that for you? Because you're the ones who are voting on it, right? This these why when we add the add the
the stipulations on the motions, they always cause me challenges. Um, basically, we're delegating to you to to vet it and approve it. Okay. Yeah, it's it's up to you. We're just saying that that's part of the motion
that we want staff to make sure that the draft proposed has been adequately vetted and acceptable. And I've already I I understand that. That's why I It's not coming back to us. No, no, no. We're pushing it on to you. Okay.
We're doing that so that you don't have to come back to us. I I understand the practical problems of of this. Jim Al I'm assuming I'm assuming that um that
this has passed staff's uh criteria already. They've brought it forward for our approval. So I would just suggest that we move forward. Okay. We had motion amended motion and did we have a second on the amended motion?
Yes, I seconded it. Okay. All right. Then we're ready for staff to do PC5. So, we're ready to to amend the motion. Okay. So, the amended motion is what we're now voting on.
You have to amend it first. So, you have to vote on adding this amendment. Okay. So, what what if Mr. Chesher withdraws his motion? You cannot do that. It's on the floor already. Let's just let's just go ahead. Well,
staff is going to pull us to vote on the amendment. To add an amendment. To add the amendment. To add the amendment. So, go ahead, staff. Poll us. Wait, hold on. Give me the amendment again. Michael. Uh, Michael Gelfian. What was the
amendment? Um, that it's subject to the contractor providing the required names and that it's approved by staff. Got it. Okay. basically what we've been saying.
Okay. All right. All everybody for accepting the amendment and Bruce Alexander. Yes. Al although I would say parenthetically that I sort of agree with Jim. I I think by the time these
things come to us that vetting has already happened and it's sort of intuitively embedded in any approval that we have that the procedures are going to be followed but I have no objection to the subject to those comments I have no objection to the
amendment Porter. Yes. France Makaboo. Yes. Jim I just don't know if this is is is it going to work? I mean I I don't I don't What are we going to get back? I mean, nothing.
It'll keep it on track. We don't get anything back. Okay. So, the original the original just goes forward. We're just This amendment really doesn't do anything. It just it it just directs staff to get
the backup information and be acceptable as they would do anyway. Without this information, we should not be approving this proposal. All right. It should be dead. DOA on the right recognizing that the project is desired
to move forward and we do have trust of staff to evaluate this or doing as we're delegating in this one instance for staff to approve it. Now, this is not to make a precedent because if this occurs again, I think there are number of us
that would say no, they're voting against this because the um bids need to be complete. And I thank John especially for going through and identifying this because it is a critical part because it
validates the numbers also for the package and that's a critical part of what we're doing on behalf of the public. I'll say I'll say yes if it helps us move forward. Don Chester.
Yes. Kevin Wilkinson. My answer would be yes. And I would uh endorse Bruce's comments on it though. Thank you. Lisa Revis, yes. Michael Gelfen, yes. Michael Guida, yes.
Virginia Ferris. Virginia. Yes. And now we're ready for the main motion. Correct. Isn't that voting on the same thing? We just voted on No, you just voted on adding that to it. That was just 10 minutes.
Okay. Just get everybody to say yes again. Go ahead. Okay. I need to call everybody's name again. Yes, sir. Okay. Bruce Alexander.
Yes. Again. Aan Porter? Yes. France Makaboo? Yes. Jim Ald? Yes. John Chesher? No. Okay. No, that means John does not want this item to go forward
because we're now voting on the whole item. Kevin Wilkinson, yes. Lisa Revis, yes. Michael Gelfin, yes. Michael Guuit, well, yes.
Daniel Parish. Yes. And there's a we need to know why John is voting no on the kind of in this item. Go forward. Who made the original motion? John Chesher. John made the original motion. So, can he know his own motion?
Because he doesn't agree with I guess the amendment. John Chesher, you there? Voted for the amendment. I am here. But he doesn't agree with You need to give staff your reason for dissenting. I think that's the reason is because the CM didn't list the personnel that they're assigning to
the project in their GMP proposal. Okay. Thank you. Is he allowed to? Yeah, he can have his reasons. I mean, he Okay, we're down to PC7 and John Chesher.
This is Let's see here. MOSS and pre-construction services where they did not list any SBE subconultants and yet during the presentation they
said they were going to have uh SBE subconultants invol involved in pre-construction and the answer I got back was that Messum and Bless will be participating
ing and pre-construction services. So, I guess from that I can assume that they're going to do it for free and they're not going to get paid because their fee summary does not list any SPE subconultants, which I don't think is the point that
they that they ask their SBEs to work for free. staff. They're I'm not here to comment on that. Um I'm going through the list because it lists out the rates in there. I don't know all the names. I know some of the
names if they're working for me. Typically, that's where we would see it. Um go to attachment F. Does that says SP participation letter? Did you look at that, John? H7
the index of attachment F. Which what? F as in Frank. That's going to be way down. Page seven. Further. It's further than that. What page of the PDF is that?
Trying to find it. It was in the It was in the um index. So essentially what what will happen is that the the staff that they use will take the place of the staff on uh that they list out on their proposal of MESM.
So they will have SB participation throughout the entire project and we do check it um before they when we reconcile everything at the at the before the GMP at the GMP and then at the end of the project to make sure they comply with that. Um that gets sent to
the office of small business and they verify that's in compliance. Page 245 is attachment L and that's the only attachment in the document. I don't see an attachment. Let's see. Right. I think those attachments go to
the GMP. They're not part of the um pre-construction services. Let's see. Is it 245? That's where the exhibits are. Attachments.
Says attachment. Hold on. 245, but nothing. Looking for F in the index of the way at the end. The table of contents. does see so in their proposal response they do um
submit a form that um guarantees that they are going to use an SB subconultant. Um we ask for that information during the pre-construction phase and if we have it we send it to the office of d um excuse me
small business. Yeah, that's um and most times they send it back and say, you know, we're not interested in this for this portion of the project. We're really focused on the construction portion and making sure that they're maintaining their subconsultants and
subcontractors sbe during the construction phase of the project. Would they still meet their percentages? They do. They do that. They're required to meet the percentage for the entire length of the contract. So there's nothing really saying in here
that they have to have it for the but I think they did confirm that they would be but they but they did follow up and say yes we we do intend to use them. They did not list them on the form but they said they do intend to use them during the pre-construction phase.
Barbara, I appreciate that. Um but in their proposal they were selected under they said they were going to be using SBE sub consultants during the contract during pre-construction services and I think their contract ought to include
that commitment not just hey a phone call yeah I'm going to use them how much you going to pay them what's the percentage um I can't believe that we're considering this contract without the SB subconultants that they promised
I'm going to be voting no on this one for that reason. Well, I wonder if we can ask staff for sending that out as confirmation with a followup simply because they've I guess verbally told purchasing staff that
yeah, they plan to use the SBEs during precon. It's just not in writing in any of the GM or the precon document we're looking at. Yeah. Well, their fee proposal doesn't include anybody. So, if they are going to use them,
they're not No, we wouldn't pay them, they would come out of their fees. No, but I'm saying their fee that they're proposing doesn't include any sbe. So, how are they saying they're going to be paid? what they would do is substitute uh
somebody from the small business partner into what their staff is and swap them out. So, they wouldn't get that fee. They would get that fee would go to the small business partner. Yeah. It's not an add-on to it. We just don't know which which items that is right now.
Mr. Sanchez, this is the second item that that came up like this today in this meeting. So, I I'm just going to give direction to to to my team that when we get these responses from these contractors or architects or whoever it is, um you
know, similar to the one with the the other issue that Mr. Chesher brought up, we got to get it in writing from these these firms and supply that written response back to the the court members when they ask these questions ahead of time. I mean they they give us these questions ahead of time so that we can have the chance to review them and
provide responses. We need to have written responses and distributed to more the board members so we wouldn't to the court members so we wouldn't have this kind of um conversations at these meetings. So so that's my my direction to my team as as for um this particular item. Again, you
know, we will go back to the contractor and get that in writing. Have him break down his fee. What's going to the prime? must go to the sub consultant for his pre-construction fees and share that with our with the the court members. Um hopefully that will satisfy you for the
vote, but if not then I understand we'll we'll we'll do better going forward. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Um John, you think that's acceptable? Well, no. I like that comment, but I'm
still going to vote no. No, it's not in the contract. But I I appreciate Mr. Sanchez saying that. Well, um yeah, Mr. Myers, the um does the contract that does a contractor provide paperwork along the way to prove that they're
using their SB subs to meet the 20% requirement? Yes. Is there there's paperwork that's in place? There is, but what Barbara's saying is that it's over the overall length of the contract. It doesn't specifically say that they have to use the SVE consultant during pre-cut.
Okay, we'll have the information provided to court. Now, can we make sure that the motion includes that stipulation we have to both place? If somebody wants to make a motion that it can go forward, but with the caveat
that staff will respond with the backup information showing how the SBE will be incorporated into precon that has been told to us. That would be fine. Michael Giland. Yeah. I'll make the motion uh that court
is no objection to proceeding subject to the contractor confirming in writing uh and staff approving language that the SB contractor will be utilized at no additional cost to the district.
Excellent. Okay. Good. Good motion. Do I have a second? Second. And identifying that contractor. Yes. Okay. Got a first, got a second. Any other comments, discussion? All right. Staff. Bruce Alexander.
Yes. David Porter. Yes. Fron Makaboom. Yes. Jim Ald. I'm just going to say I agree with John on this. Um if there's a if if there's a commitment to use them in in pre-construction in the proposal, then
it needs to be included in their GMP. That's pretty standard. So, I I I do agree with John on that, but I'm gonna vote yes to move it forward. John Tester, no. Kevin Wilkinson, my answer is yes. And I thank Mr.
Sanchez for his comments. Lisa Ravis, no. Michael Gelfan, yes. Michael Guida, yes. Virginia Fish, uh, yes. And I want to thank Mr. Sanchez
for uh his direction to staff because he's correct. We should not be having to ask these questions today. Thank you. Okay. Um we need revis. We need kind of a and John
statement about your dissenting vote. I don't think the court should be asked to vote on an incomplete contract. Okay. Wasn't this vote the vote to amend the original item? Okay,
that's why I asked we got this one that amendment. All right, because I must have been writing. Okay, go had had given a nice concise motion. I was writing. Okay, thank you. All right, we are have to consent say his descent.
Fisher, does he have to say his? Uh, Don Chesher, you want to give us a viewer dissenting vote? Yeah, I'm voting no because the uh the CM promised uh SVE subconsultants during pre-construction services in his
proposal and it wasn't included in his contract. Okay, thank you. I just u I appreciate this. Um I recognize that this these two have
been an anomaly, but the next time this happens, I'm likely to vote no on it. So, and I got a feeling the rest of the court may be feeling the same. Thank you. Comment was going to make is that John, I think you were on this selection
committee, weren't you? I was. And so really John's the only one that would have known what was in the proposal other than staff. So if John hadn't picked that up, we wouldn't have known it because I wasn't on the selection committee. So um that's for
staff to have good follow through to make sure that what we're being told in proposals is what we get. John's legal eye is fantastic. I want to thank John for what he has picked up. This is the last on the um
consent agenda items and the questions that have come forward beforehand have been very valuable and I really appreciate those of you with that expertise asking those questions and getting the answers from staff. Thank you. Yes,
um I also just want to echo that I do appreciate casher's comments regarding what's missing on these documents. When this question came up, we happened to be negotiating the uh con the the contract for the pre-construction phase for
Northtech Riviera Beach when this question came up and that vendor did the exact same thing. Did not include the SBE subconsultant. So during the negotiation we you know corrected that and they did add it. So it's valuable information. Thank you.
Right. Moving along. Staff updates. Okay. Well, um, if we can, I'm going to start off with Mr. Cheshure, sorry, Mr. Sanchez to put in his, uh, uh, first sentiments on the new school year, and then Michael and I will offer our
comments as well. Well, actually, I don't want I don't want to steal Dave and Michael's thunder. They're the guys who are closest to getting our our newer schools built and all the projects that were done over the summer. Let give you guys the opportunity to take credit for all those. I will just
say that um the construction projects that we do have an impact on uh the rest of our operations um Saddle View allowed us to eliminate the buses that were taking students from Ardan over to Banks
Forest. So now we um recovered I think five or six buses uh those so those routes we no longer have to do. Um same thing with Windbrook. We were temporarily housing Winbrook over at Crestwood Middle School in Royal Palm Beach and that occupied another six or
seven buses and we we no longer have those to do that with those buses. So, as a result of that, we're we're able to improve our operations on the transportation side. So, one hand washes the other basically is what I'm trying to say. Um and then similarly I I was u
on the first day of school I had a chance to um attend the well actually serve lunch at W at the W did a re-engineering project there. We put a new uh the food court that's the ninth um re-engineered kitchen that we've done
or cafeteria that we've done. Um and again that I think I was told by our food service manager that our first day lunches were up something like 21% from last year. So um kids are really enjoying that that um that setup and
that the food that they're getting at that re-engineered. So thank you for approving a number of those projects. Um they're definitely making an impact in in a number of different ways in our schools. And um and it it there's other things I just I just went by Forestell High School with that parking lot you
guys are talking about much improved over there. The way that that operates um several things that that we do here that come through COP allow us to to to make our schools much more efficient. So I want to I want to offer my my thanks appreciation for the entire team because
you guys have a hand in that. Um you guys are volunteers and you give a lot of time to to uh to get this done. So so thank you for all you do. Um, but I'm gonna let Dave go into more Dave might go into more some of the projects that they've done. Thank you.
Okay. Um, yeah, I'll keep my my comments short because I know my report later and you guys not going to want to hear me talk. Um, no, it was a great start of the school year. Um, I will say I'll let Michael talk about the details of some of the projects. Um, but um, for me it's
really exciting time of year for us. Um even our staff gets the opportunity to see the kids coming in where the week before school starts. A lot of the schools actually have their um meet the teacher and our staff are always around during those wrap up days of
construction and making sure they get to see the uh see through the the work that it's done and and uh school is good and ready. Um I I really appreciate this time of year because they get to see who
they are working for. We may we collectively this body of uh folks we may get lost in the idea of the the contracts and the and the details behind what we're building. Uh but every once in a while it really is a pleasurable
thing for staff to be able to go and see who they're doing it for the kids. Um my my one example that I I'll touch on is we had a a facility renewal we've been working on at Roosevelt Elementary. Um our team did an incredible job. Mark
and his team did a great job. They were um last minute rushing to get some of the flooring done and their media center. We didn't think we were going to get it done, but the team got it done and waxed. Um, now we put the same old furniture back, but the kids came in for
that parent uh for that meet the teacher and I swear they felt like it was a new school. They they were, you know, exuding happiness that they felt like they got something for them that we gave them a brand new media center. No, we just gave them new flooring, flooring
and lighting. We're going to get them new furniture, right, Mr. Sanchez? But yes, um we we our little impacts make a huge uh effect on these these kids. And so for me, it was a really great this is a great time of year to see that.
That's that's my comments for now. Yeah. I and I know I know we touched on the new schools a lot and and the the the high-profile stuff, but I guess what my comment is all the other background stuff, you know. Um I know teachers and students would disagree with me to say that the summer's short, but for us it's
really short, seven weeks to get a lot of work done. You know, we had tons and tons of air conditioning and switch gear and lights and all kinds of flooring went in that um sometimes goes unnoticed, but it it just makes critical for the school to operate. So, wanted to comment on that. all all our contractors
and architects and staff did a great job compressing a ton of work in a short period of time. Yeah. And uh as as always is this case uh doesn't stop because now we get to work on nights and weekends and and whatnot, but uh we're going to continue
on the uh the efforts. Okay. All right. In progress work, we have that out. Okay. Um, Mr. Chair, my apologies. I've got to do a scoot out. I'm not a quorum. Am I?
No, I think we still have a quorum, don't we, Dorothy? Yes. Yes, we do, Michael. Thank you, Michael. Thank you, sir. Okay. Um, as I always say, I'll try to be brief, but I never am. Um, we're gonna quickly go through these first
round of slides. Darthy, if you or who whoever's running it, David would um you can see our updates on the uh money uh the receipts and the expenditures. Um we're still catching up, but we're getting there. As you'll note by the next slide, talks about all our upcoming
solicitations. Um we've got quite a number of uh uh RFPs and uh contracts coming out. These are the uh slides for for you all to see what's coming up in the coming months in
front of you. Next one, the next series of slides. I'm not going to get into the the the details because as I always mentioned, we our facility renewals continue on. Um now we're getting into a lot more but at a lot lower dollar
value. So um it's an immense number of projects that are underway or about to get underway. So these are these are our planning sta stage the design and GMP activities. You can see these this mimics some of the uh the original slide
talked about the charts. Okay. And I think I counted this month I think I was like 28 schools listed under here that we're working on facility renewals. Um, and again, please feel free to scroll through these more rapidly, but these are uh the ongoing
things. As I say, these are the ones that make a difference that they come into the school at the start of the new school year and get to see all this work done. It may go, mom and dad may not see it, but the kids really get to feel it. So, um, and as Michael said, kudos to
staff for keeping up keeping these projects moving. There's photos of some of the examples of the work that's uh ongoing, continuing on. Okay. Um South View Elementary, that's our Ardan West Acreage. Um that school
is open and um uh hopefully some of you have gotten the chance to see it on TV. It's uh truly an incredible facility. Um great for the community. It matches the community uh vernacular. U go ahead and scroll on through
on that slide right there. You'll notice that we have the solar panels down there um just to the left of the uh the play courts. Is that a track? A running track? No, those are the blue is the bus loop. That's a bus. Okay.
Looks like it could be a track. Yes. Here's the solar panel. Panels right there. Yep. Right by the blue. We only have one bus at that school, so it could be a range. Did uh we buy the solar panels or were they through FPL? We bought them. So the
solar panels on that project run the courtyard um garden that they have the the hydroponic garden. Um so all the equipment that they have runs off those solar panels. So it's like a self-contained mini net zero courtyard. The lighting and all that kind of stuff.
No battery backup. No. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Um next school up is um Windbrook Elementary. our modernization of that school um or I think there was one building that we renovated and could be
one and um and a new office space and classroom buildings. They also opened up on Monday. Um and again a huge huge impact to the neighborhood. the these students were uh temporarily housed uh
occupied the uh holding campus at Crestwood Middle. Now they are back to their community, their neighborhood school. This is exciting for the for the school students but also for the entire community. And these have a lot more interior photos. I'm happy to say you get to see
a little bit what the the insides look like. And by the way, all those playgrounds uh the playgrounds are up and good. Uh the shade structures are coming on both of them. So uh on both schools. So that you'll you'll notice that they look uncovered. Now there was another photo.
That one right there shows the the structure. They'll all be covered um in in short order. Okay. West West Rib um West Riviera Elementary modernization, you'll notice, is uh well underway. It continues on. Um
I I want to say um early next year. Yeah. Um January. Yeah. Early earlier. So next year, we anticipate completion of construction. So if you want to scroll on through those photos because you kind of see the the impacts. There we go.
It's not planned to open until next school year. It is no opening up next August, correct? So, we'll have more of an opportunity to to review it. Okay. Next one I have on here is um something we might have talked about,
South Intensive. um uh that is over at the what's called the Old South Tech campus. Uh that the the the school has um I guess rebranded they are referred to as Rise Academy and
um also I anticipate this uh what this is is a u renovation of the old South Tech building 2. You'll see it on on the first slide, but it's basically um um service,
uh, food service and, um, transportation, etc. So, it is, uh, we're anticipating this is going to be open early, uh, in 2026, and certainly appreciated by the community because right now they are in
the they're in portables on campus. So, we're going to have them in their good, high quality space, a high quality renovated space. Next one up is historic Roosevelt. Um, we've probably talked about this quite a bit. This is the gymnasium is
being renovated. Shop building is being renovated. And we've constructed a new twostory classroom building. Um, and forgive me, I don't know. I don't remember when this is going to be March, April.
March or April. Okay. So, we're we're looking all for the same time. It seems like all of them are coming in at the same time. You can see the gymnasium there on the bottom and then um to the top of it is the uh new two-story building right there. And then the shop
is to the left. And this is the phase as we always refer to it as phase one. um those three buildings will be occupied and uh I presume in the summer because
it's an adult education facility. Um I I think they run their first programs in the summer. So I think that's when we would anticipate this opening up. And there's the old historic um facility along Tamarind right there.
That's phase two. That'll be Yeah, as mentioned that that will be our phase two project and we're starting the design now. Okay, there you go. Next time I'm putting that slide up near the front.
That's the brand new two-story building. And that's the two-story building with the shop building next to it. interior spaces. Okay. Um and now this is where I usually tell um all the work that Darthothy's
doing, but now it's it's actually not just Darthy, it's it's Darthy, David, and Maris. Uh quite a number of different projects ongoing. Uh you can see them all there. Uh there's this is just a small
smattering of the projects um under construction. Okay, now I get to get get to the good stuff. Jupiter High School has both a uh a brand new uh fieldhouse funded by a
donor and a media center project ongoing. as as mentioned the farestill parking lots that we have. Uh these are the golf course parking lots. Looks good.
Some roof projects, few drainage projects, and that's just a smattering. There's obviously quite a quite a great number more. Um are there any questions? Actually, I got a question for Mr. Sanchez. Um, do we have any of the have any of the electric buses arrived and
are in operation? Yeah, we have we have um five buses this week. We'll have 13 next week. We had to do some some uh we got eight in recently at the end of the summer just before started school. We had to train the drivers on those. So, um yeah, by next
week we'll have 13 and hopefully by the end of this month we'll have about we'll have 20 electric buses running. How has the feedback been so far and the mileage you're getting out of them? Oh, it's been the feedback's been great by the students, by the drivers. Um,
everybody loves them. Um, you know, obviously we put them on routes that that we can sustain them on so that we don't put them on routes that take them too far, but um, in fact, we put them on routes that we can run the the the buses on the same charge, meaning that we
charge them overnight, don't have to charge them again during the middle of the day. So we charge them once for the entire day for the morning route and the afternoon route. So I I forget the exact the distance that the maximum distance that we that we run them on, but um it's it's probably less than, you know, 150
200 miles over that for the morning and afternoon um between the two between the two um runs. That's a decent distance. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Like I said, it's probably closer to the 100 than it is the 200, I think. Can we identify those
buses by sight? If we see one, would we know what it is? Um, yeah. You have to look closely. Right now, the ones that are on the road are all um special education buses. So, you'll first of all, you can probably see one there's a door for the for the wheelchair. So, you could tell that. But
right above the the window, I mean, right above the door where um where your students enter, instead of a a blue, they're all right now they're all bluebird buses, but instead of a blue bluebird, it'll be a green bluebird. Um so a green bird greenird
green bird, right? Um, so yeah, so you can see the green on the buses, but the the state of Florida is very particular about what information you can put on out on the outside of buses, so you really couldn't change a whole lot. Um, but you'll see it'll be green instead of
blue. Are they smaller? Are they smaller? No, they're the same size as our regular buses. All right. Thank you. You're welcome. Thanks. Okay. All right. Down to followup. Um, we had a follow-up document basically said, uh, we're going
to kick the we can down the curb a little bit more and that's fine. Any discussion items by court members? Anything we haven't talked about? Right. On your agenda, the next court meeting is September 11th. Any issues with minutes by anyone?
All right. Hearing none, minutes are accepted. anything we want specifically for staff to come back to us with? I don't think, Darthothy, we had anything outstanding that was coming back other than what's listed in followup. Not that I'm aware of.
Right. All right. Anything else for anyone? All right, then we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.