Regular - Part 1 Meeting

No content available.

[0] SPEAKER_35: Mm.

[31] Ray Rodriguez: Okay, approval of the agenda. I have a couple of changes. Anyone else have anything? Well, it's on the agenda now.

[52] Ray Rodriguez: Any changes or corrections or anything?

[58] SPEAKER_32: The only thing that we had talked about before was doing the adjacent responsibilities during the organization time rather than what we do. And I'm thinking about what we did at the end before, because we wanted to tackle all the other things that we were going through and discussing.

[83] Ray Rodriguez: I think, so what is your opinion?

[88] SPEAKER_32: My feeling would be that we've got it this way and we'll go this way, but I think there's an easier way to do it, and that's to do it on one issue rather than a six, rather than doing each one separately. Because our decision is based on deciding what each person's going to do before we make a decision about one, or make a decision about all of them.

[107] Ray Rodriguez: And I have changed the president, and we've done it this way for a while. That doesn't mean we can't change it. So next time the board gets together, that might be something we might want to discuss. But in the meantime, I'd like to leave it where it is.

[119] SPEAKER_32: That's a pay-per-view number, correct? That was the decision that she made when we set up the agenda. That's fine. When are we talking about our new committee?

[127] Ray Rodriguez: When we do the committees.

[136] Ray Rodriguez: And we've always done the committees toward the back. We'll keep it that way for now. Okay. Anything else? On the item 10, oath of office. Senator Sanchez got together with the Honorable Ms.

[166] Ray Rodriguez: And what I'd like to do is just change that a little bit. So we would just put honorable in front of the elected officials, which would be myself, member Crocker, and member Pursado. And put honorable in front of Ms. Vivian Larson. with the, she's the Board of Trustees, Polonium Community College District. So, it's okay to have some minutes, we'll reflect that.

[222] SPEAKER_26: And I have updated the invitation officially for the record, and we can clean it up for the... I have a question then.

[229] SPEAKER_32: Are we going to be part of the honorable approval at all things in this?

[234] Ray Rodriguez: That's the, I guess that's the correct way, but I mean, that would be up to, I've never done that, but for this, since it's a special event, Mrs. Larson was here this morning, and her and Superintendent Sanchez got together, and I'm fine with the change, because that's normally the way we would be addressed, like if we go to a conference, our name tag should say Honorable. But again, that's something that we want to discuss as far as future items.

[267] SPEAKER_26: If I could add, I think the changes in the edits were really just because it was, for the record, as the transition occurs, for one time, that it wasn't intended to be in perpetuity for everything. It was just to memorialize the transition.

[283] Ray Rodriguez: That's really all it was for. So that's one. And then there's an item on the board, I mean on the agenda, Dennis Sanchez, the equipment for the elementary schools, where is that at?

[315] SPEAKER_26: No, it was in here, it was under... Playground equipment, is that what we're talking about?

[324] SPEAKER_28: Play structure safety replacements is under new action item D.

[339] Ray Rodriguez: So, so pretending you want to pull that, right?

[342] SPEAKER_26: Is that correct? I think we need to have discussion and then we'll take it from there, but depending on the discussion.

[348] Ray Rodriguez: Well, I, rather than having discussion, if we're going to bring it back anyway, and I don't think Mr. Richards has all, has gotten his information.

[363] SPEAKER_32: You could say this has been reported rather than eliminating it.

[366] Ray Rodriguez: Okay, that creates a little bit of confusion because we have people, parents that want to come. And if it's on the agenda, then they can't speak to it because we're, it's just discussion. We're not going to vote on it normally.

[386] Ray Rodriguez: If it's not on the agenda, under public comment, and then they can come back if they want to give us, if they want to speak again.

[395] Nancy Thomas: I would prefer to pull it and bring it to us when all the information we need is there.

[401] Ray Rodriguez: So would I. If Member Crocker wants to keep it, I want to pull it. Member Thomas wants to pull it.

[411] SPEAKER_32: My feeling is that's what happens when you get to that point.

[415] Ray Rodriguez: No, this is, in my opinion, we're making changes to the agenda

[425] SPEAKER_29: then don't speak on the public comment you don't know yeah the problem you have is it's on late on the agenda and they also requested that we move it all the way up I would just like the public

[448] SPEAKER_32: The things that you're talking about, people that you do not contact, that you do not know what they're going to come and talk to you about. Right.

[454] Ray Rodriguez: And they will tell you when they get here.

[455] SPEAKER_32: When they get here, maybe too late.

[458] SPEAKER_29: But we can't. I'm not really sure if I'm comfortable with us knowing who's going to come talk to us on a specific item.

[465] Ray Rodriguez: No. A lot of times we don't know who's going to speak on a specific item. That's right. It's not on the agenda. They do it under public comment and that's really not a problem. The information isn't all there. I'd rather just pull it and bring it back under public comment. No, I'd rather put them at the front. It just creates too much confusion.

[497] SPEAKER_32: I think you're causing confusion for people that may not have had contact with you, but saw it in the end and decided to come. And you can't assume that you're talking to those people. And so at that point, they're closed up.

[507] Ray Rodriguez: No, they come in and they can speak on it. And I will make the announcement that they can speak on it. And they'll probably come in on the Jedi.

[515] SPEAKER_32: It may be after, and they may come after because of where it's located in the gym. I don't know.

[519] Ray Rodriguez: No, they were told, and these are one group of parents in there, that because Ms. McDonald was involved in it, they emailed her and she told them to come at the beginning of the meeting. And I sent them an email and said it would be at 2.30 when we talk about public comment and non-agenda items. Because it was my understanding that the majority of the board wanted to go ahead. I think we're treading very murky waters here. I don't think so. I think so too. No, there's an item on the agenda. We're trying to approve the agenda. Mr. Richards wants to pull it, so why not pull it? We can do it right now. I haven't heard Mr. Richards complain at all about this. Mr. Richards, are you ready?

[560] Ray Rodriguez: Or is it better to pull it and bring it back at the point?

[562] SPEAKER_28: It would actually be my preference that we leave it on the agenda. because it is actually a two-part item. One is with regard to direction with the existing structures, and the second is with regard to direction as far as moving forward with replacement structures. And the status of the existing structures is the concern that I would like to discuss with the board.

[582] Ray Rodriguez: Now, my motion then, I'm asking the board to move it up on the agenda. Because people, they're going to bring kids, and they want to come. The way it's in the agenda right now is we won't get to it by 9.30, which is kind of late.

[597] SPEAKER_29: So do I have... So the market water that I'm referencing is, I'm not sure if it's crucial for us to be in contact with potential speakers on a particular item. I think we make that decision at the start if we see that there are kids and if we see But I don't think we're supposed to be in contact with people ahead of time, and knowing each other.

[621] Ray Rodriguez: No, there was no, it was just an email that was sent out telling them whether it was going to be on the agenda, that's all. That's not having a conversation. That just let people know that it's going to be on the agenda, and if they want to speak on it, they can come to the meeting. But how do you stop kids from coming? Because member Mrs. McDonald said that we were going to bring kids. That was the email she sent out to Lieutenant Sanchez and myself.

[644] SPEAKER_26: So anyway, Might I offer a suggestion? Yeah. I would suggest amending the agenda to list it as discussion only. And if we see that there's a need for public comment on that item to move it, we can move it at that time if that occurs. And then there's not any moving it unless you need to move it type of thing.

[667] Nancy Thomas: I don't know if that makes sense. I agree with that. I also have no problem with moving it up front if we think people will be here. And as I mentioned before to the board, and I think I sent some verbiage to that effect, you can move something on the agenda. You don't even have to have a vote on it. You just have to have consensus of the board. So unless the board has any objection to moving it, we can move it up on the agenda.

[700] SPEAKER_31: If we're not doing an action anyhow then what we have to do is hear what they're saying From a process perspective though again all our agenda items are discussion slash action so we can make a determination of whether or not to have action and you don't have to actually Because because otherwise then I would say it should be under the superintendent's report Or there's no action.

[728] Ray Rodriguez: Agreed. So we'll leave it, as far as I'm concerned, we can leave it on discussion, slides, action. And then, so the next thing is to move it up, and I would suggest that we move it up right after the staff report. And before public comment and agenda items. Unless somebody else has a different idea.

[772] SPEAKER_31: And you might move it up to, because it's under new business, can we move it to the first date under new business?

[784] Ray Rodriguez: That's still going to be late. Sure.

[788] SPEAKER_31: I guess then how come all new? Yeah, but then I guess the issue becomes like any time I guess that's just for us to make sure we map it out correctly in the first place, because at the end of time, it's a 10-minute report.

[804] SPEAKER_32: Yeah, he was talking about kind of caution. I would suggest that perhaps under the superintendent's report, there would be a point at which people that are there with children could speak to it.

[813] Ray Rodriguez: We can't do that if it's on the agenda. They have to speak on it when we talk about it. If it wasn't on the agenda, yeah, we could do that.

[821] SPEAKER_32: The superintendent's report is the superintendent's report.

[826] Ray Rodriguez: You're asking people to speak on the agenda.

[832] SPEAKER_26: So perhaps that might be a solution, would be leave it where it is, but amend the agenda to add it also under my report, so we can discuss it there. Can you have it both places?

[842] Ray Rodriguez: If someone's here early, they can comment. Yeah, we can do that. The second one would basically be action, and the first one would be discussion.

[851] Nancy Thomas: Everybody okay with that? I would love to amend it. to be discussion only. I think that this is a very big item, and any big item like this, I think, should never be just discussion action at the first time we hear about it. Okay.

[866] Ray Rodriguez: I agree with that.

[868] SPEAKER_32: But we can choose not to add it.

[870] SPEAKER_31: That's my point, because if we change it to only discussion, I'm okay with that, but then let's not put it where it's at right now, because then it's weird. I process that. Only if something comes up with a major concern, then we're just going to take out that piece of the motion saying we're going to process things. Either we put it in the right place, or we take it out. And I'm okay with that.

[891] Ray Rodriguez: Why couldn't we leave it where it is, and then also add it under the superintendent report just for discussion? I'm okay with that. Okay.

[899] SPEAKER_26: So it's on twice. I think that makes sense, but what I would specify is that the action might be further information brought to the board.

[908] Ray Rodriguez: We'll leave it where it is under discussion action, and then we'll also move it up front under the superintendent's report, just for discussion, for people to speak to. Is that okay with everybody? Okay, good, we got consensus. I don't have anything else, anyone else have it? So we're good. So now we recess to the work session.

[951] SPEAKER_28: Tonight we have with us Robert Sands and John Watkins from Banner Construction Management. They're going to give us an update on the past three and a half fiscal years of work with regard to Measure G as well as kind of a where we are and what we see coming down the pike. over the course of the next year plus as we continue moving forward with our reconstruction program. So I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to John, I think, is going to start us off. And we'll move forward from there. And they're going to have a presentation. Then we'll have opportunity for a board discussion and input.

[983] SPEAKER_25: I'm happy to be here before the board officially today presenting. Just a functional question to start. I believe we have until 6 o'clock. Is that right? It's about 40 minutes or so.

[993] Ray Rodriguez: OK. Just not to interrupt you, but I'm The superintendent is okay with it since we're a little late. I don't know on closed session whether we need the whole hour. If it goes a little long, I'm going to do fine.

[1004] SPEAKER_26: That would be a problem. I think we could go to 615. Okay. 620. Great. Thanks.

[1009] SPEAKER_25: That's great. There's a workshop component at the end that might take some time to get to, but again, thank you all. The agenda today, and can you all see what I'm presenting as well? They have it in front of them. Great. Thank you. So we'll start off by looking at the bond and program history to date. Then we're, at the superintendent's request, going to review the authorized work, take a look at what work of the authorized work has been completed, and then of the authorized work, what is remaining. And then I'll introduce the workshop component, where we'll talk about the objective of the workshop, and then we'll get right into it. A big portion of that's going to be discussing value-added work, so we'll be discussing that at the very end.

[1048] SPEAKER_28: John, I'm going to stop you for just one second on a point of order that came from Ms. Sandoval. Mr. Rodriguez, we didn't actually take the vote on the amendment to the agenda.

[1059] Ray Rodriguez: Oh, it was consensus. Do we?

[1062] SPEAKER_28: But we have to approve the agenda. Approval of the agenda is an agendized item. I'll move to approve.

[1068] Ray Rodriguez: Senator Nguyen moves. I'll second.

[1074] SPEAKER_29: Please vote. Five ayes. Five ayes.

[1077] Ray Rodriguez: We're not going to do that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Richmond. Okay, sorry to interrupt.

[1084] Sean Abruzzi: No, no problem.

[1085] SPEAKER_25: Thank you. So the bond measure language, it's actually in your packet, but I'll summarize it here. This was actually part of the presentation from 2013. So it's for capital improvements. Measure U is for capital improvements. Broad language covers most systems and structures. Funds can't be used for administrative salaries. but that they can cover bond project oversight district staff that oversees the project and works directly on bond projects. It doesn't cover non-attached furniture and equipment. The way I like to think of this is when you take the building and turn it upside down, anything that falls out isn't covered by the bond. And it doesn't cover general maintenance. It can replace broken parts, but not regular. It doesn't cover regular maintenance or servicing equipment Though the project priorities were defined by the ballot measure.

[1141] SPEAKER_29: Yeah. Do you want us to interject with questions as you go or wait until the very end?

[1145] SPEAKER_25: I think if we, I have about a 10 minute presentation and we can ask questions at the very end. So there's project priorities as defined by the ballot measure that's also attached. Safety and security. Next, immediate impact on classroom and instruction. Third is protect the structural integrity of the schools. Fourth would be to maximize additional funding resources. I believe that's by finding ways to participate in various state programs that might make additional funds available. And finally, expense reduction, which I believe to be operational costs, et cetera. So looking at the history of the approach that led up to the bond and then the early days of the bond, In August of 2011, there was a needs assessment done that depicted over $150 million in need. It prioritized roofing and HVAC upgrades. And then looking at district administration and principals, they described need for roofing, HVAC, and paving upgrades. So that led to $63 million in bond language that supported these types of projects. That bond was passed. It became Measure G. And then Banner started in November 2012. began very early on with targeted assessments aimed at those priorities described above, primarily roofing, HVAC, and paving. On June 18th of 2013, a preliminary budget was presented to the board with approximately a $14 million deficit. And that was workshopped and discussed. And then on June 25th of 2013, there was a revised reconciled budget that was developed and presented. And at that point in time, Manny was directed to proceed.

[1247] Nancy Thomas: That. Could I? Yes. I reviewed the minutes for that meeting and I don't remember the board taking any vote. We discussed, but I don't remember us taking any vote.

[1259] SPEAKER_25: We looked at the minutes and we can, let's, we can always look into that further. I think that the important thing is that there's a budget that's been established and we could always, we could always look at that in more, in more depth. But for our purposes today, I think it's best to move on, and we can flag that as an item for future discussion. So the, and actually the precursor to the budget that was, became the spreadsheet, it's actually, it's after the, I believe the PowerPoint presentation in your packet. There's a spreadsheet there, and that's going to be on the next slide. I've basically repeated it here, but the authorized budget was, established to total the $63 million. It was comprised primarily of roofing HVAC projects and then there were lesser amounts established for low voltage and lighting, paving, playgrounds, and science classrooms, which I believe were at the high school. The rest of the items, the roofing, HVAC, low voltage, and lighting were district-wide. And then there were budgets established for program support, district personnel, miscellaneous costs, which are all the costs that were pre-bond, and then the quick start projects from 2013. And then there was a total of $8 million set aside for contingency and escalation. Of those costs, To date, we've completed $15.4 million of the roofing projects. I'm going to cover the completed and remaining at the same time. There's $2.09 million projected remaining at the high school. That's the only roofing work remaining. The rest of the roofs district-wide that were part of the original assessment have been replaced. The same is true for HVAC. There's $17.9 million of HVAC work that's been completed. And half a million is projected for next summer. That includes four units at the high school and two units at the junior high. The remainder of the units that were a part of the original assessment, and I make that distinction intentionally, the original assessment did not recommend all units to be replaced. It recommended the units that needed to be replaced to be replaced. Because if you remember, there was $150 million in need established in 2011. So the bond attacked about half of that. The low voltage and lighting work, $2,050,000 was completed. And remaining were actually done. So there's no more work on the docket or projected for the low voltage and lighting. Early on in 2013, the wireless access points were established throughout the district. And that also included the building automation controls for the district wide. Paving work. 3.86 million was complete, and that included, originally, the pavement at the schools that was in the playground areas, I believe, was prioritized. And due to subsurface conditions, I believe that budget was, as you can see, there's a balance that's a negative balance, so there was additional work performed. I won't spend too much time on that today. We can always table that for future discussion. But I'll keep on moving down. The playgrounds that had the most dire need were presented and budgeted for. 0.22 million, so 220,000 was complete. So that line item is complete as well. There are no playground items that are being contemplated at the time. Science classrooms, there's been about $40,000 in design costs that have been undertaken at this point to establish initial budgets. So it's essential to get a design under your wing so that you can to establish a coherent budget. So that's the effort that's been undertaken on the science classrooms to date. For program support, I've split it into two lines to depict the total cost to date for the CM costs, and then miscellaneous costs. The page behind the budget spreadsheet includes a more in-depth description of what the miscellaneous costs entail, but essentially it's bond cost design and other miscellaneous costs that are associated with bond, and they're delineated there. The district personnel, There's been $210,000 of expenses towards district personnel and the miscellaneous costs. Of the quick start and cost to date, we're tracking $820,000 completed. And there won't be any more expenditures on that line. And of note, and I'm going to address the HVAC and roofing updates as well. The contingency and escalation lines haven't been touched to date. So any of the overages that you see here, those haven't been allocated towards contingency or escalation. So there's a total of $8 million that comes from those lines. And if you look at the roofing and HVAC upgrades, there's nearly seven or over $7.5 million in savings there. So that's where we end up with approximately $12.7 million in bond savings. And that's what we're going to focus on today in the workshop portion. As you knew, the end of a bond, this is often the hardest part of the bond, is finding a way to appropriately allocate the remaining funds. So in closing on the bond measure up to date, I've had the opportunity over the last two and a half months to gain an understanding of what Bond Measure G was all about. Really, it's been a foundation for growth for the district. It's on Measure G delivered essential roofing and HVAC projects under budget, as well as district-wide low-voltage system upgrades and site projects. This work has cleared the way for a future focus on other priorities aimed at increasing enrollment. The remaining budget properly allocated and combined with Russian funds may help support future value-added work. It helps lead the way towards newer 2030, which we can also discuss in the workshop portion. So our objective today, we are at a turning point. We need to know what projects for 2017 are authorized. And we're going to take a look at that in the workshop portion. Right now, we understand that the authorized projects are the remainder of the roofs at the high school and the remainder of the HVAC systems. The balance of the work for the bond, that's all that's remaining to be complete. We're going to also look at what other potential projects there might be. As we workshop, I like to use the concept of a parking lot. Some of you are familiar with that. It's not an actual parking lot, but it's more projects that need more discussion than we have time for today. We'll put them in the parking lot. I'll keep a detailed list of those. We can prioritize that list. It gives you all the opportunity to be heard, and it gives us a tool to use. I tend to call it the value add list, and that's something that we can all discuss as we move forward. And that can become the input for future needs assessments or future bonds in the future. And then if time allows, which I don't believe will today, we'll discuss next steps that lead to completion, including a future meeting schedule if one's necessary, and then a design of DSA strategy. So we'll get into the workshop in just a moment. Very large post-it notes, which I was very happy to see they actually make. So we'll use these. I think what we'll do is hand them out to the board members, and you can all write projects up. Robert and I will place them up on the board. And then we can have a brief discussion about the projects. I do want to make sure that we're on the same page regarding the upcoming summer projects. But then of all the projects that we get up on the board, I have These dots here, we're going to prioritize the projects with these dots. And this is a way we came up with to do this. The red dots are going to be your top priority. Each one of you will get a sheet of these. So you get three vote, or I won't call it a vote. It's just that, you know, we're prioritizing. So you get three red dots, which are the top priority projects in your mind. Three yellow dots, which are, you know, kind of lukewarm projects. And then three blue dots, which are the low priority projects. And then we'll come away from that with a prioritized list hopefully create future discussion. So without any further ado, I think we'll get into it. I do want to, I'll leave this up on the board as we discuss. These items are for your consideration. They're also on the back of the agenda. So in putting this list together and adhering to the needs of the district during my brief time here, I think it's important to discuss how the changing priorities of the district since 2013, have changed and might affect the projects that we consider, as long as they still fit within the bond language, I think that's a valid consideration. How does newer 2030 factor into our discussions today as a new concept? What are the community expectations? It's very important to all of us, and I'm sure to all of you, that the bond be considered successful. So what will the community consider a successful bond project to be? HVAC replacement I really need to drive this point home. Do the original assumptions need to be reassessed now based on our increased understanding of the district and how the units are maintained? The original assessment included a 20-year assumption on lifetime. The, you know, that's if units are maintained regularly. The maintenance budget might not allow for that. So industry standard is 20, you know, anywhere from 15 to 20 years. Most of the units in the district were installed in 2002, so you might be coming up on that lifetime, or at least at a point where the risk is increased. Secondly, and this is a new point that's come up that we've looked at, the R22 refrigerant, in April of 2016, federally they're looking at phasing out R22 refrigerant, and it's a phase out where they make it more stringent that you not use R22, they also make it more expensive. Locally in California, they've proposed a strategy that would ban The use of R22 refrigerant in 2020, and again, with units that were installed in 2002, that leaves approximately an 18-year lifetime. So that's worth considering. Modular and portable replacement, that's come up as well. We're going to be demolishing some modulars that was, you know, approved by the board, but are we replacing those modulars? And obviously, the numbers that were presented previously, you know, we've worked those numbers down. We're about, you know, $300,000 to install a modular. maybe $180,000 to purchase, $70,000 to purchase a used one, so it's $800,000 to $1,000,000 to install two modulars. And then science classroom, what are the goals for the science classroom? And finally, given the constraints, what projects are most feasible given the budget and design DSA and construction timelines. So these are just some thoughts to have. I think without any further ado, we can get started. Thank you.

[1936] SPEAKER_28: There's actually one brief correction I need to make to a presentation. It was on the second slide. With regard to non-attached furniture and equipment. Because this is a Proposition 39 bond, and because we did include it in paragraph 12 of the ballot language, there is furniture and equipment allowable under the bond. I wanted to be sure the board knew that, because as you know, we did some technology upgrades during the very first year, and it did include some things that are not physically attached to buildings. But it was specifically allowed because we did call for it in the bond language.

[1967] Ray Rodriguez: Thank you, Mr. Richards, appreciate it. So if the board doesn't mind, if when you're ready to speak, if you could just hit your request button, I'd appreciate it. And can I have your name so I can address you properly? John. John? There's just one of these or how does that work? Thank you.

[1991] SPEAKER_25: What we're going to do is... Is it one idea for... Yeah, one idea per sheet. I think there were some questions too, so I'll be happy to answer those before we get started.

[2007] Ray Rodriguez: Can you get the lights back on? Yes.

[2010] SPEAKER_26: Thank you. Excuse me, Member Cracker.

[2014] SPEAKER_32: Member Cracker, if you don't mind, I've got other people that want to speak.

[2026] Ray Rodriguez: Since you wanted to originally go ahead, you can go first.

[2029] SPEAKER_32: I was going to say, when we do the selection, we're talking about new projects or old projects or a combination?

[2038] SPEAKER_25: I think it's really, it's an open brainstorming session, and so we want to make sure that we have everything covered. So maybe old projects that you want to take another look at, maybe new projects could be a combination. And the next steps from here, we'll take this prioritized list and then As items come up that require board action, we'll come back to the board, you know, with refined budgets, things that will allow you to make an informed decision on how to proceed.

[2060] SPEAKER_32: Okay, so I'm looking at this and we've got about 12 minutes, right? Correct. That has not been set up or earmarked for something. Yes. You're saying that the HVAC that we have now have a time?

[2075] SPEAKER_25: Yeah, there's an assumed lifetime. It's basically, you know, compressors tend to go, they usually have a five-year warranty. The unit as a whole has a 15 to 20-year lifetime depending on the frequency and the quality of the maintenance that's done on the unit.

[2089] SPEAKER_32: So those are the ones we did not request?

[2091] SPEAKER_25: Yes, those are the ones that we did not request.

[2093] SPEAKER_32: How much do we have left of those?

[2096] SPEAKER_25: That's a good question. We have the ability to do an in-depth look Unit replacement is going to be about 30 to 50,000 to give you just a very ballpark idea as you're thinking about this. We've done the most replacements, complete replacements at the elementary schools. The junior high and high school still have replacements that would, the majority of the high school units were installed in 2002 and we've installed those, we've replaced those that needed the most work as part of the bond.

[2128] Ray Rodriguez: a member of Bruce Yellow, and then member of White.

[2132] SPEAKER_31: So my question is, so on slide four, you mentioned that 150 million of me was identified, and then different things were prioritized. Do you have that list, as someone who wasn't a part of that kind of conversation? I think it'd be helpful for us, instead of reinventing the wheel, to be able to see what the priorities are, and how we can either come up with new ones based off of that.

[2156] SPEAKER_25: That was part of the, I believe, there was an assessment done. I have a copy here. And I can send the file out. But it's part of the reason that it wasn't brought up, because it's just too much to digest for this.

[2172] SPEAKER_31: Or I guess maybe just, because as we're brainstorming, I'm trying to think of, like, I don't want to come up with ideas that I've already come up with, or people I've already come up with, and then I don't want to reinvent the wheel, I guess.

[2184] SPEAKER_25: Well, that's a fair point, and I think I can provide you with this copy now. Yeah, it's rather sizable, but... I gave you my copy.

[2193] Nancy Thomas: Oh, wow, go ahead. Yeah, that's it. If you take that one, I'd like mine back, because it has tabs.

[2199] SPEAKER_29: So, I wanted to go back to slide 5 for reference. That has a breakdown on cost and... Yes. So, In the gray areas, we're starting with program support, program, et cetera. I'm assuming those are soft costs. The CM portion, is that the specific project construction management or is that bond management?

[2230] SPEAKER_25: That's basically energy cost to date. So that would be project management and that would also be program management at the bond level.

[2238] SPEAKER_29: Okay. And so each of the items, the larger items, for example, the roofing and HVAC upgrades, Did that incur any kind of design or soft cost that's within that budget line? Or is that all accounted for in the gray areas?

[2249] SPEAKER_25: I believe in looking at the numbers, and Brian could probably answer this a bit better, but I believe that the design costs are with the actual roofing costs. The only numbers that I didn't see were ADIS. And ADIS's numbers, they did some of the initial design on the science classroom. They weren't allocated. towards any of the roofing or HVAC costs.

[2272] SPEAKER_29: Were there any CM costs within that roofing line? Not yet. Or is that all pulled down into the grid?

[2277] SPEAKER_25: That's all pulled down into the grid.

[2280] SPEAKER_29: Okay. So, and then with management, CM.

[2298] Sean Abruzzi: That's correct.

[2298] SPEAKER_29: And all the CM and program management starts off the program, the second half, basically. And so then the follow-up question I would have then is what accounts for the over budget, essentially, of 3.17 million dollars for the... I'd love to answer that question.

[2319] SPEAKER_27: I have here our contract, okay, and it's stated on November the 2nd, 2012, And in the contract that's signed by y'all, our contract is $5,386,260 with $325,000 worth of reimbursable costs. That does not make, that is more, that's five game over contract and not a $3 million contract. We've been underfunded. We're still got a million and a half to $2 million left.

[2349] SPEAKER_25: in our contract and projected with reform at that level.

[2353] SPEAKER_29: So can you help me reconcile what was that contract? Because if it's a contract that's approved, but then on the alignment, it only shows an approved amount of $3 million.

[2363] SPEAKER_28: I believe I can answer the question. I think part of a portion of the reason why we're looking at HVAC are so far under the budget. Part of it was because we accelerated projects. Part of it, I believe, is because when the budget was initially built, it was anticipated that program management and project management were going to be billed out separately, and one would be directly charged to the projects, and the other would be allocated from Central. In reality, what has happened is all of the billing from Banner has been going into the same account, and when we appropriate all of that out to the cost of the projects, which we do on an annual basis at the financial statement level when we're done at the end of the year. It does eventually get allocated out to the cost of the projects, but you don't see it in the general ledger report. It gets done at the audit and financial statement level. So what has happened is you've got an overage in one item and two line items that are substantially under because the portion of how the budget was initially set up in 2013 doesn't match the way the actual accounting of the billing has happened since then. But so everything's sitting in object code 6238, which is where their billing goes, and then it gets appropriated out against all the projects.

[2431] SPEAKER_29: So then what you're saying is that there's some money that is, for lack of a better word, hidden within that line item above that is then accounting for that $5 million contract that he has?

[2444] SPEAKER_25: We've only billed 3.47 today. There's been no additional billings beyond that.

[2450] Nancy Thomas: So that money is not included in the

[2452] SPEAKER_25: That's correct.

[2453] Nancy Thomas: Roofing and HVAC.

[2454] SPEAKER_25: That's correct. And I think what Brian is saying that there's, you know, there's capacity up above, you know, and roofing and HVAC for that to occur, but it hasn't occurred at this point.

[2462] SPEAKER_32: But the final, the final, the final tally will show that as part of each project. So that the final project tally that he has will not be 17 or 18.3 million, but will be that plus whatever the cost per vendor for overseeing that building.

[2485] SPEAKER_29: So under program support under the CM, I see an authorization for $43 million. And then under program support miscellaneous, there's no set number. But it looks like 1.5 went all the way to the right column because you're under, you know, you're negative $1.5 million. So that's 4.5 million that's authorized for CM and miscellaneous support. How's that? I'm just trying to understand the chart.

[2517] SPEAKER_25: No, I can understand it. In putting these numbers together, we anticipated questions on this. So I think it might be best to table discussions on this. We should definitely leave time for that. But for our purposes today, if we can focus more on the workshop aspects, I'm sure we'll be able to answer the questions more completely at a later time.

[2536] SPEAKER_29: And the workshop aspect and creating a wish list is a wonderful idea, but if we are uncertain as far as the true number is left, and we come up with all these great ideas, and suddenly a month later you come back and say, oh, wait a minute, we forgot to account for this $4 million, now you only have 8.7 instead of 12.7, then that can be very frustrating.

[2557] SPEAKER_25: I can understand what you're saying. The costs to date that have been encumbered are accurate. You know, Banner's billing to date through last month was 3.47 million. So there's no additional costs that are pending other than, you know, costs that were occurring as we move forward. So what we've done is I've captured our projections under the remaining line. So 1.2 projected to complete and close out through, for all of the authorized projects through 2017 would be 1.2. And then that would bring us to the numbers that you see here. And again, once those numbers are reallocated, we may see that they move within the budget, but the bottom line number of 12.7, that shouldn't change.

[2602] Ray Rodriguez: Right, so I'm sorry, Member Wayne, it's just that if the conversation is just with one board member, we have other board members. Is it okay if you just bring it back after other board members speak?

[2616] SPEAKER_29: Okay, go ahead. Thank you. So what you're asserting is that the 1.2 million that's remaining, that's encumbered, is to finish out the projects that are remaining. So what is the monetary value of the projects that are left to remain?

[2633] SPEAKER_25: Well, the monetary value would be the remaining work at the high school. So the 2.09 plus the units, the .5, the half.

[2642] SPEAKER_29: So 2.5 million, $2.59 million. Yeah, yeah. So the CM work for $2.59 million is $1.2 million?

[2651] SPEAKER_25: That's our projections, yes. And there's, you know, there's other ongoing efforts. So 50%. There's also the Russian projects. There's, you know, what those projections are, two FTEs for until the summer work starts, then we ramp up staff to cover the summer work, to actually have physical bodies there to observe. So it's basically myself and a project engineer that sit in the trailer, and we work day in, day out with the district on facilities management projects. We do a number of, you know, we're busy all day long.

[2682] SPEAKER_29: I understand that, and we do appreciate the work that you do. However, I've never heard of a 50% CM cost for any project. It's not. What we have left to build off our contract right now is $229,478.

[2691] SPEAKER_27: That's what we have left. That's the, or just our, just for our contract.

[2705] SPEAKER_25: No, that 229, I'm sorry, Robert, that's the amount we're seeing.

[2711] SPEAKER_27: Oh, okay. Oh, yeah, so we're 2.2. Yes, 2.2, I'm sorry.

[2719] SPEAKER_28: Wait, so I think, allow me to clarify. Thank you. The contract that they have, that's the $5 million contract, is across the entire $63 million bond program. including all the program and project management for all of the projects in the bond series, including any additional projects that the board chooses to put in with the remaining funds that are left. that contract is for the entire length of the $63 million bond program. It is not just for the projects that are assigned out to date. So they don't have a 50% balance of the remaining projects. What they have is a balance divided by the entire 16 million of what's pending and the balance.

[2763] SPEAKER_29: So then was this a process in a billing issue where they probably should have billed us more along the way or is it a factor of You know, we were saving a lot of money up front because of the nature of the completion of the previous projects and therefore, oh wait a minute, we need to escalate the charges to account for our total contract.

[2789] SPEAKER_28: Neither, by the way, you asked your question. When the budgets were set in 2013, and that does predate me by a year based on the information that I do have, there was a lot set aside in contingency and escalation because we really didn't know where the construction market was going to be going or what else was going to be found when the rips got ripped off of the schools and what else was going to be in there. As it proceeded, and we accelerated projects because we sold bonds sooner and we had bonds available to go ahead and expend, we've moved forward on projects and realized some savings related to that. And we haven't had to dip into much of the contingency and escalation. We have dipped actually into some of it with the overage that happened with regard to the playgrounds. But we knew that when we got into the conditions of the soil at the elementary schools. The amount of the Vanner construction management contract for the entire $63 million issue has been unchanged since the initial adoption of the issue. So even if we throw additional projects in there to fill up the rest of the $63 million, it's not going to change the element of their contract. Their contract was for the fixed period of time and for the fixed amount of work incorporated in the $63 million bond program. And so that number isn't going to suddenly spike as we add additional projects in it. That's just how much is left. And when you prorate it across the time of the bond and how much we've done, it's actually coming in right about where it should be. I don't think they've accelerated billing or decelerated billing in this case. We're about where we would expect to be with this much of expenditure of the bonds. We're about three quarters of the way expended at about $45 million out of $63 million. And they're about three quarters of the way through their $5 million contract.

[2890] SPEAKER_29: So the $5 million total contract they have, and taking that over $6 billion, you're right, that comes in at a much more reasonable amount. But what I'm curious to then is, and going back to my initial question, is that all of it as far as the 5.8? No, is that just a, is that program or all of construction management?

[2915] SPEAKER_28: That has included both program and project management. It's everything that we've been doing with them, as I mentioned. Although the budgets may have initially been set up to separate them and I don't have that level of granular detail on how Elaine set the initial budgets up as far as whether she thought that was all going to be In there, the fact that the contract is five and that the 3.0 is the program support line, that tells me that they had split it between the cost of the projects and the cost of program management. However, when the billing has been coming in, at least since I've been here, we haven't been bifurcating out program management from project management. Looking backwards, it'd probably be a good idea for us to do that, and we can probably go ahead and bring all that out, but we've already capitalized the assets and we prorate everything anyway. into all the projects. So as we're capitalizing the assets, that's what's happening.

[2959] SPEAKER_29: Right, and that's why, you know, if the way that we're doing it is fine. I just don't want to see, for example, HVAC, you know, at a completion of my $17.9 million, that, you know, maybe $3 or $4 million of that is still within soft costs that hasn't been extracted out yet. And you're telling me, all three of you are telling us that all the program and CM work has been extracted out, and what we see in the gray areas is basically what we have, right? For CM and PM work.

[2992] SPEAKER_25: That's correct.

[2994] SPEAKER_29: Okay, that the only items that are in that 17.9, for example, are direct costs or design?

[3002] SPEAKER_25: Yes, yes, that's correct. Yeah, and direct costs would include inspections, You know, and things of that nature.

[3008] SPEAKER_28: Yeah. It's great. I understand when the bills come in, I can directly identify to a project automatically.

[3015] Nancy Thomas: How much of the $12.7 million can we anticipate allocating toward direct costs?

[3028] SPEAKER_25: The $12.7 million already takes into account our projected costs. So the We have $150,000 set aside for any remaining design and inspection. And we have $1.2 million set aside for projected costs, for our own costs, including closeout of the bond. And also, I should mention DSA closeout. We make sure that that's a top priority for all of us.

[3051] Nancy Thomas: Okay, so there's no contingency or escalation anticipated out of that $12.7 million?

[3058] SPEAKER_25: No, and I think that in, you know, after today's efforts, we'll have a list, and then part of the planning for that 12.7 million would include building in any project contingency due to any unforeseen or things of that nature, but it wouldn't include a banner contingency or anything like that.

[3078] Nancy Thomas: I got it.

[3079] Ray Rodriguez: I'm fine. I had a question. During the summer projects, some of the board members, based on community input, were unhappy with Banner's involvement and the way you were handling summer projects. What have you put in place to make sure that next summer that we don't have the same issues?

[3111] SPEAKER_25: I think that's kind of a multi-faceted question. I mean, I was understanding... I think every question is multi-faceted. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. I think it's a great question because, I mean, clearly coming on board, that was heard loud and clear, you know. So I really take an approach that's very proactive, building a strong set of contract documents so that you have the contractor on, you know, fully on board for completing the work. The question of how the work is going to be completed is you know, I think an important one. It's one that we're strategizing currently. I think the method that you use to deliver the work is very important. This last summer was hard hit. Previous summer's lease lease back is a great way to proceed. So depending on how these projects break out between the roof and the HVAC, we may look at breaking off a portion and utilizing an alternative contracting method to bring on contractors that you know can perform. We are also here in December now looking at work in June. So I can tell you that I will look at that contractor eye to eye and say, how are you going to get this done? And there's really, you know, we're limited and we're constrained by the availability of workforce, but we can also proactively manage things that we as construction professionals recognize come up all the time. So one last thing, I also look for trends, negative trends. Expedited summer work is very difficult, We do have a procurement period leading up to that that's going to help us identify if we're going to run into problems during that seven-week construction period. So there'll be early indicators where we'll be able to share those with the board and the e-board to be able to, you know, kind of make sure that everyone's on the same page.

[3212] SPEAKER_27: So. Another thing that we do internally is, as part of our culture, is that we sit down with our staff and talk about lessons learned. What are the seven things that we did this summer that we need to look at, see how we can do it differently, or how we don't do it? And so we sat down and wrote out criteria, things that we saw that we did this summer, just like we did the summer before and the summer before. The lessons learned. Did we do too many projects this summer? Did we do one before DSA got approved? I mean, there was a lot of little issues that we looked at, lessons learned, that we documented and said we are not going to go down this path again because it didn't turn out well. So there's a lot of things like that. We did have a couple issues with the contractor not getting out of the way in time and all that, you know all that stuff. We learn that, we understand that, and that's not gonna happen again. That's part of our lessons learned.

[3263] Ray Rodriguez: And I, on a positive note, I appreciate the fact that you work with Superintendent Sanchez and Mr. Richards on the issue at the high school and try to rectify some of that and so that part is appreciated and the fact that you haven't bailed your You're standing in there trying to help us get through this and complete our projects. Now, getting back on a lot of the questions, Mr. Wynn, on the money part, when it says authorized, is that what the board authorized?

[3301] SPEAKER_25: I can probably answer that question and we can look into this further.

[3304] Ray Rodriguez: Well, let me tell you why I asked. If the board authorized a certain amount of money and you've gone over, wouldn't you have to come back to the board to get approval on that? or is that something that's authorized by staff? I mean, I'm thinking if the board authorizes it and it's going to go over, then that's something that should come back to the board, at least to keep us abreast of what's going on.

[3325] SPEAKER_25: Yeah, and I think that that's an interesting question. I mean, looking at the paving aspect, I believe each of those items were acted on individually. I don't know if they were presented in context of the larger budget. When it comes to the program costs, the approval of the contract actually predated the establishment of the budget. So I think it may not have been contemplated, you know, directly the way that it was presented, but it was, it was, the contract predated the establishment of the budget. So, but I do completely agree. I think that any cost that is encumbered needs to be authorized by the board.

[3359] Ray Rodriguez: And then the, when you have the contingency and the escalation, Wouldn't those money be also in remaining and then shift over to the balance? They did, yeah, fully. All right. Yeah. Okay, so I just thought they should be in both spots.

[3377] SPEAKER_25: Essentially, I'm not encumbering anything there. We're basically saying, hey, we're not spending any of it. Let's move it over.

[3383] Ray Rodriguez: So on the areas where you were over, like paving, can you just, without really getting into deeply, just explain why that went over.

[3398] SPEAKER_25: Yeah, I think, you know, I may be the most appropriate to do this because I do want to keep it at a high level. The subsurface conditions were not as expected. There were efforts undertaken to resolve that. It led to increased costs. And, you know, these are the costs that we captured here. I know that, you know, I've heard that paving is certainly a concern. So I, you know, potentially we should discuss this further, you know, but, you know, that's my basic understanding. Okay. Member Thomas.

[3429] SPEAKER_28: I can give you a little more information if you'd like. Sorry. I'm sorry, Nancy, if you want to ask a question.

[3434] Nancy Thomas: Well, I wanted to make the point that when that budget was made in the 13th, it was anticipating costs for HVAC and roofing, which did not materialize because they were less. The paving was never originally planned at that level and it just escalated like mad. We have not had since then a board discussion of an overall budget with the remaining funds which is what I hope we get at tonight, so that we're not coming piecemeal. In the original budget, we never anticipated the portables. That was never there. We never anticipated all the paving. We anticipated $3 million for the science, and that was reduced to $1 million because of the initial estimates for regrouping and HVAC, and yet it never has come back to 3 million because we've never had a budget discussion like today. So I appreciate this budget discussion.

[3501] Ray Rodriguez: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. How do you want to continue?

[3509] SPEAKER_25: Well, I see the time is about 6, so I think we have 15 to 20 minutes. I'd say 20. Yeah. I think. You know, I think this, if you don't mind, and I don't know the protocol, but this would be rather freeform. I mean, feel free to get up, we have markers.

[3536] SPEAKER_26: I would suggest put up your top five or six things, and then it'll prioritize in the second phase. Just put them up, and if you want to zone it by existing, new, or both, or something like that. It doesn't matter. I think you just put them up. What I would recommend is put up at least five or six that you think are important, and we'll affinity group them, and after they're grouped by affinity, you guys can prioritize and process them. That might be an easy way to do this.

[3562] SPEAKER_32: Question, the furniture that we have already put into the two schools, is it already taken care of? That's correct. That was Russian.

[3570] SPEAKER_28: That was Russian. That was not measured in.

[3580] SPEAKER_31: this conversation a little bit with a facility strategic planning discussion. I'm just wondering how we can target the different funds that we have in a cohesive, organized plan.

[3596] SPEAKER_31: But in terms of like, or thinking about making decisions about kind of the strategic planning, I'm wondering how we if there's a way in which. . . You want to combine both fronts. Yeah, well, no, I want to combine the, like, or come up with a vision together, and then figure out what resources we have in order to implement that vision.

[3618] SPEAKER_31: I think that's what we're doing now, though, is come up with that vision, right? But it's only. . . It's a price tag. Well, because we're not. . . I don't think we're going to be talking about, like, the last time we got the K through 8 shilling, or the McGregor shared campus central office. Is there anything that we can use?

[3638] SPEAKER_25: That's a great option for parking lot, you know, because that really becomes the value added. I would think as big as you want to think for this, and really what I've seen is it's best, and I think Superintendent Sanchez is prepared to break the seal here. If he started, once he started getting items up on the board, it'll really start to take form, you know. And I would have had multicolored stickies, but the only color they had was pink, so stick with yellow for now.

[3664] SPEAKER_27: I couldn't help it, but great.

[3673] SPEAKER_25: So we have new, move central, I like this new and these are all new projects. Move central office to McGregor. Schilling Elementary K-8 are similar. Furniture for remaining sites. I'm just reading these out so we don't get any repeats. Move preschool from Whiteford to Musick. Sixth grade classrooms of New Jersey, at the Newark Junior High School to the middle college model. We also have high school science, elementary frontage. The K4H building redesign, solar for freestanding lights. You're doing that fantastic.

[3734] SPEAKER_32: High school science. Where do we see that? Right here.

[3767] SPEAKER_25: Move district office to McGregor, which I think I saw here. Expand cafeteria to training center. The middle school model, which I think I saw. It's kind of interesting, these do start to take on a theme. Repair replace most severely aged portable classrooms, possibly with modular permanent structures.

[3805] SPEAKER_29: That's a good one. So I'm going to be a wet blanket on this. Unless I'm misunderstanding the nature of this bond, I don't think we can spend it on district office, correct?

[3817] SPEAKER_25: that's probably likely, I would say. So we'll move down on the parking lot. Actually, that's a good idea. Why don't we get it over there now just so we don't get too far off track. Has anyone considered the HVAC units at this point?

[3850] SPEAKER_25: What's the new project? Yeah, that's the site. So this is good. I'm just kind of doubling up on these.

[3855] SPEAKER_27: We're in Fresco, we've got the canton, HVAC, solar lights, repair portables, new Fresco, the locker, music.

[3868] SPEAKER_32: Question. The restrictions on the Russian money is different

[3885] SPEAKER_28: Russian is restricted to capital outlay, but it is not restricted as to location or type of capital outlay.

[3948] SPEAKER_28: That's from junior high?

[3981] SPEAKER_27: It's a $12 million, and then you have the Russian. But we already have. Elevator safety has gotten us. That's it. OK. Do we have some more coming?

[4057] SPEAKER_27: All the building and outside on the podium?

[4060] Nancy Thomas: I mean the pedestal signage. Sure.

[4074] SPEAKER_25: Because I can start to, I'll just review these just so I make sure that I have everyone's understanding captured and then we can come up and put the stickies down. So here we have 20-year roof repair to ensure long life. Fencing and landscaping. Paving other than playgrounds, i.e. roads and parking areas. NMHS safety. Mr. Rodriguez, I split yours into several. Board member Rodriguez, thank you. The honorable, yes, thank you. High school science and biomedical STEM building. Finish the HVAC. NMHS sports field, NMHS scoreboard, and that is furniture for remaining sites. I believe that's the 21st century furniture. This is the Newark Junior High School b-volume courtyard. Solar for freestanding lights. Replace signage, i.e. modernize. We have the old portables and repair play structures. And then here on the parking lot, this is great. A lot of these I've seen come up even in my short time here. Move to McGregor. The central office, the D.O., the concept of moving from McGregor, or moving the D.O. to McGregor. The K-8 shilling redesign. The employee affordable workforce housing. Move preschool from Whiteford to Music. I think it's somewhat related to that. The middle school model came up several times. And then new school area three, I wasn't too sure what that, but you all know what that means. Great, great. So do I have these categories correctly where we got the majority, like the parking lot versus what might be attainable with the current bond?

[4194] SPEAKER_32: have at least 20 years of life left. So whatever is not in that situation, then we need to look for repair and replacement.

[4200] SPEAKER_25: OK, there's the metal roof at the high school that's going to be done this summer, and the remainder of the roofs at the high school. To my knowledge, district-wide, all of the other roofs, with the exception of the metal roofs on the modulars. But I believe that that would be considered under the portable discussion.

[4217] SPEAKER_32: Take it off? Sure. If that's not effective.

[4220] SPEAKER_29: So before we proceed to actually voting, can I make a request that we hold off on the voting and that we conduct the same type of exercise with all the principals in our districts and presently other stakeholders so that they can provide their input?

[4242] SPEAKER_29: very micro decisions as far as, you know, putting X, Y, Z. I think it should come from the stakeholders and, you know, the site, people who work at the site, and they can tell us what they feel is the highest need in the district, and then we can take their recommendations. Because if we vote now, then that's going to tame

[4271] Nancy Thomas: I see that as saying, are we kind of coming together on one line? It doesn't preclude us doing that.

[4279] SPEAKER_29: No, no, but right. But my fear is when we put up these votes, then the people who will then go through the same process, the site folks, are going to have the sense of, you know, theater complete.

[4296] SPEAKER_25: I think in this session we can now provide that. I may be out of bounds with respect to the board practice. I was very careful not to call it a post. So the prioritization can be held so it's like a blind test.

[4315] SPEAKER_31: So maybe as a suggestion, instead of doing that, maybe we do categories. Just organize them into categories and then you don't have to figure out, like, this is my category that I prioritize. within all these contexts to figure out how they fit in. Because we have two minutes left. If we just organize them, we don't have to do a sticker. We don't have to do a sticker. We can just organize them.

[4339] SPEAKER_29: Which has been done. I would really like to hear from the site folks, though.

[4344] SPEAKER_27: We've done this in a lot of districts. And you've got to start with a group somewhere. So you need to start with the public, or you can start here. I know this is televised and all that, but I think

[4358] SPEAKER_26: What might help is I think it's still worth having the board prioritize at least a portion that is important to them relative to the bond dollars. Yeah parking lots. There's some overflow and overspill into Russian and into general fund and other areas. But I would say that we better be very intentional about how we communicate that to our stakeholders in the sense that, you know, this is what we think. What do you think? And I think that could be a launch pad of taking it to staff at every building. I think the idea, and I really totally agree with Member Nguyen, that we have to, we don't want to taint their voting, but I think it's still okay for the staff to go kind of with the board's thinking, but that's not a finished product. I was just recently at a school today. I went to meet with the Schilling staff. And part of what I'm trying to reassure Schilling and all of our stakeholders in our community is we're not deciding for you. We want to really engage you in a process. And I think so how we take it forward really matters. But maybe there's a way to say, this is kind of an initial rough draft. Would you like to react to it? What do you think? What are we forgetting? I don't know if it's worth doing that. But I know there's a little bit of a kind of in the middle. I see what you're saying, but at the same time, we have to get some kind of indication from the board. I would guess we can't do all the things with the balance of the bond money anyway, is my prediction. I mean, any one of those things would probably risk our budget. But it's going to help. We're just trying to get an approximate idea of what is remaining to be done out of the bond money. So I don't know, I think that. Right, but if. This is just the starting point in my opinion.

[4473] SPEAKER_26: But there's, let me just say this because we're creating a draft that people could work from. However, the culture of the district is still, there's a little bit of fear in that, that we're deciding for people. So it is a fine line we have to walk in leadership now as the leaders of the district that we can't have people feel that it's a foregone concept.

[4499] Ray Rodriguez: I remember, Perciello, what's your thoughts on this?

[4501] SPEAKER_31: I just want to say, so maybe that's why instead of actually putting the stickies, if we just categorize and say these are the kind of the general areas that the board just brought up, but frame it in a way, and that's it, that's it, so we're done, and then put this in the context of some sort of survey, or some sort of like, if we could do online, like these are general areas, like the branches, what is your priority community in terms of the different things and then and then people can have specifics or people can say like these are the categories so this could be a good starting patch.

[4553] SPEAKER_29: Yeah, that's what I said. Don't do the stickers.

[4556] Nancy Thomas: I mean, I'm fine with the stickers and walking that fine line, but I won't argue. OK, that's fine. I would say, though, that some of these items are hugely expensive. And my recommendation would be that there would be some kind of a budget estimate

[4579] SPEAKER_25: Yeah, let me, let me, and I'm sorry, just for the record, can you please finish?

[4586] Nancy Thomas: No, I mean, if your next step, you know, what does it mean to repair the play structures in the district that need repairing? What about the tour goals? What are we talking about? Unless we have some kind of an idea of what the budget item would be.

[4601] Ray Rodriguez: Yeah, so just to conclude. Yeah, we need to, I'm sorry, what's your suggestion on when we can have another work session on this?

[4611] SPEAKER_26: I would like, what I would like to do, and I don't know if it's December or early January, is to do some version of a charrette where we bring Banner, we bring Dutra, we bring financial information, we bring maybe some of those folks that are players in the room to be able to have a next level conversation with us. I would like if you guys could compile this into those broad categories so that I could put it in a format to share with principals, to share with their sites, and maybe recommend a process for them to go through. But as I think about that, I'm leaning more towards January to bring back some sort of a deeper study session. I do know that we are considering, and I'm asking the board wait until February to implement what we're calling one board meeting a month and one meeting that will be deeper, deeper study sessions in the placeholder time for the second board meeting. So I think at the very latest, the backstop would be that second meeting in February to do a deep dive two to three hour study session on these matters. My target is to try to get some of these things really clarified before we go to the budget. So that's kind of my, no later than that is my thinking. So that's kind of how, just breakdown sequence. Okay.

[4697] Ray Rodriguez: I think. Okay, we have to go into closed session, but you're going to have a new, a new president and vice president, Mr. Sanchez. So I'm superintendent. So that's something you guys can work on as far as moving forward.

[4710] SPEAKER_29: And at that juncture. Please be sure to get the various input from the sites, so that way we can see what we've come up with, what they've come up with, and then maybe we can reconcile.

[4722] Ray Rodriguez: I think he already said that he was going to do that, right? Yeah. Okay, so at 6.20, let's go to closed session. Thank you.

[4728] SPEAKER_31: Thank you for your... Thank you.

No minutes available.