001All right, good afternoon. I will call the special finance and capital management committee meeting to order on Wednesday, April the 29th at 4:30 uh in the boardroom. We have an agenda before us. The uh I'm joined by uh committee member Drouse. Vice Chair Harrison is uh out of town today, so he won't be joining us. And we also have Vice President Molnar uh in addition to Treasurer Wayne Bowers and Superintendent Lee. Uh item number one is the review from the previous committee meeting. Uh those that summary was attached. Uh we discussed the various items uh which we're going to discuss again today. And so with that, I would I could I have a motion to approve the mean minutes from the last meeting? So moved. I'll second that. All in favor? I. Any opposed? All
002right. Next up, is there anybody in the audience that would like to address the committee? All right. Seeing none, we'll go on to item number two, finance up- updates. This is item 2.01. This is the resolution. Uh this is a uh re- it's a new resolution uh regarding fiscal year 2027 budget reductions. Uh Mr. Treasurer, are you doing this or am I? Uh I thought we were doing it. That's fine. All right. So, there is a resolution that was attached in BoardDocs uh previous to the meeting. This is a resolution that was born out of the last committee meeting and how I interpreted the conversation to go. And so I propose uh this resolution. And what I attempted to do was take the uh working with the administration, take the previously three introduced resolutions that
003specifically only addressed the reductions in force. And to meet the requests of the committee and other board members that were at that meeting, uh I came up with uh a listing of the inclusion of the entire $11 million by the cost category. So, the superintendent and the treasurer and the assistant treasurer got together and said, "Okay, here was the $11 million that the superintendent proposed uh to meet the $11 million reductions and to take those and summarize those into cost categories. And that is what uh is in this resolution. So, it is a resolution approving budget reductions for fiscal year 2027, including reductions in force, accepting administrative administrative expenditure reductions, and directing their incorporation into the temporary and permanent appropriations." And so to kind of explain that, I I did walk through this in the
004last committee meeting. Uh the board on an annual basis, our fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30. And so what the full board will review after uh it comes to this committee next month is we receive a temporary appropriation in June to get us through the first quarter of the school year. So, so July, August, and September. And then in the Sep- September time frame or right around the September time frame, we get the final appropriation budget. And what this resolution is saying, it's directing the board and the and the administration to include the entire $11 million in both versions of that budget. Because again, these reductions of $11 million are for next fiscal year beginning July 1 of 2026. So, not to read the whole thing, um I wanted to point out
005on page two of the resolution, uh this is where the cost categories and these cost categories are based on our financial system. So, in our vernacular, we use the term object codes or account codes. And so all of the proposed reductions in operating expenditures from the superintendent and the administration were then categorized into those buckets. Um and so you can see them outlined here. It is still inclusive of the 1.6, almost 1.7 million of reduction in force items. Those are spelled out later on in whereas clauses and again are reflective of the three previous resolutions that were introduced about reductions in force. And then the remaining 9.3 million in the operational expenditure. So, what this does, again, it lowers the approved appropriations and budget for the fiscal year of 2027, which re- uh removes the
006statutory authority of the superintendent and treasurer to spend those funds. And so, [snorts] uh tried to be reflective of all of that in here and all of the other legal language that needs to be uh normally included in this. And so with that, I will open it up first to the committee members for questions or comments and then other members of the board. And before I turn it over to member Drouse, I just want to say President Sykes has joined us as well. So. Mr. Drouse, you have any questions or concerns? Uh no questions or concerns. I mean, I think the proposal looks to be sound. It's nice to have all the entire $11 million in the proposal. I think the one thing I know I've heard from the community is just maybe a need
007for some clarity on how what the next steps will be when the positions are in fact reduced. I know some of the different buildings were talking about the value that the different paraprofessionals were giving to their school, the deans, and kind of trying to figure out, well, where do we go from here when they're no longer there? So, I think some communication just on what's the plan look like, who is going to be taking on those assignments, those responsibilities, and those roles. And that might help calm some of the concerns by the current building staff when they're seeing their colleagues' positions being reduced. Uh before I turn it over, um is that um Miss Madam Superintendent, is that something that you can prepare? Absolutely. I will have that prepared in advance so you can read
008it before the meeting. >> Thank you. Uh questions or comments from other members of the board? Dr. Molnar. Thank you, Chair uh Montgomery. Um I'm going to start. I have a bunch of notes. I'm going to try to stay on track here. I'm going to start that as a board, we've positioned ourselves as a, you know, new it is our new era and campaigned on clarity, transparency, uh communication with the community. And um in this process, I do think that one thing has been made very clear and transparent to the community, and that's we need to reduce $11 million this year. We need to reduce next year. And the reason that we need to reduce that is because of the state funding formula. And so I think we all understand what we need to do.
009Um but what has not been clear is how we were going to do it. And so that's where I am a very literal person and it's comes I've realized that there's been an assumption and a reality. And so um assumption would be the $11 million would come from low-hanging fruit. Assumption would be, you know, the larger, more impactful reductions would come next year. Uh assumption would be student-facing positions would be protected as long as possible. Um assumption would be that the board would receive, you know, all of the things that were considered. Um and then understand that of all the things that were considered because of the impact to students and classrooms, that we would it would be very clear on um what was happening. But that is not at least my reality. Um I
010am deeply concerned that this cuts, the reductions in force, are all people who work with students directly all day, every day. Um the deans, you know, these roles they handle critical responsibilities like our 504s. These are legal documents. And so when our deans are gone, who will do the 504s? These are These are things that worry me. And and I will admit, they worry me as a parent. Right? Sometimes people say, "You're only worried about your kids." And and yes, I am a parent. I do have that lens. I think about my kids, their classmates. I think about my neighbors. And by my neighbors, I mean our whole Akron community and all the kids in our schools. And so when I ask questions like, "What alternatives were considered? And why was this path chosen over
011others?" I want to be able to explain that to my neighbors on the playground, my neighbors at the grocery store, my neighbors on the soccer field. I want to be able to explain um what what this is. Why are we closing libraries in the building during the school day? Or Or do we no longer need to close libraries during the building during school day? Did we find a a way around it as member Drouse mentioned? Um And also, another assumption is our um some clarity around our role in this, right? There are seven of us. And and when when does the balance go from rubber stamping to micromanaging? I think that's a conversation that we've kind of had that might not be universally held. And so as an attempt to create an alignment, I thought
012the finance committee would be a great place to discuss these types of things. And so that way we could be one board, one voice, have an idea because of sunshine law, we can't call each other on the weekends and all say, "Let's do this." And this is micromanaging, that's rubber stamping. And so as as we discussed, right? I thought if we had a a resolution or something. I don't know when it would be appropriate to have that discussion on what the process could be, should be, or if you've had I know you've not had a lot of time to think about that. Um but how we would get on the same page on priorities, process, alignment um moving forward. Thank you, Dr. Molnar. I I mean, I'll just add that I I think as I
013described at the last committee meeting, the purpose of this resolution and my um feeling reading of a board's responsibility is the budgetary aspect of it. And that's not to say that we can't have conversations with the administration about what information is provided to the board to make those decisions. But right now our decision is to reduce the budget appropriations by $11 million, which removes the statutory authority for the administration to spend it. And then it is the administration's job to figure out what they can live without to meet that budget reduction. And what has been proposed to me does that. Um I don't think it is discouraging continued conversation about building processes or policies in that area as we as we previously discussed. But to me, those are separate items. This item is a reduction
014of appropriations. And what board members need to see to make that decision for themselves that the administration is going to properly meet that reduction with the least impact on academic achievement or student success is for the the superintendent to make happen. And our second responsibility as board members is the supervision and review of the superintendent and the treasurer. And if the decisions made to meet that budget reduction aren't reflected, then we can do that as a as a review and hold accountable to the to the superintendent. So, I'm happy to continue that conversation here at the finance committee because it's around the idea of budget reductions. But to me again, they are two separate issues. So, we're with this resolution attempting to reduce the budget, part of which is a reduction in force. The superintendent
015has proposed given the proposal of the positions that she and her leadership team can live without is not the right term in this because every job cut I know as President Sykes said at our last committee meeting, everything we cut now is going to impact the students in some way, shape, or form. And so, um making sure that we have an understanding of what goes into that is a great path forward. But I think that we still need to move forward with this so those impacted employees can get notified now. It is I believe Madam Superintendent still our understanding that all 17 will have the opportunity for another spot within the district. Uh that is correct. And so, I think giving them an an opportunity to do that because again, this is effective on July
0161 of 2026 for fiscal year 27. It hasn't happened yet. And so, all of this is forward thinking and our commitment to the state through our financial forecast because our next financial forecast is due a couple months earlier than it has been due in the past. Is it August now? Uh and so, we're saying ahead of time that we've done what we need to do to make that forecast accurate and continue to do that. So, any other questions, Madam President Sykes? Nope. Uh I also want to note that member Kelly has joined us. Member Kelly, do you have any questions or comments on the reduction resolution? Uh thank you, Chairman Montgomery. Um and greetings to all. No, I don't have any questions regarding the reductions. All right, thank you. If there are no other questions
017or comments, I would ask for a motion to move this to the rules committee on May the 4th. >> So moved. I'll second that. All in favor? I. Any opposed? All right, thank you. Next up is the item 2.02, a resolution for appropriations increase for fiscal year 2026, our current fiscal year. And with that, Mr. Treasurer, I believe that is yours. >> Yes, I will do that one. So, we are asking to increase the appropriations in the general fund in the amount of $4 million and and the severance fund in the amount of $250,000. In the general fund, this is due to the need to cover the increased cost of van drivers. Um as we all have seen this year, those have been about $8 million over budget. And you can see in the purchased
018services line item that that is the increased amount. The way this works in the general fund is the top section is that we are netting other areas um to cover most of that. So, you can see for example that we have moved $2.2 million out of supplies and materials into purchased services. And it nets to $4 million. And in the severance fund, there have been an increase in um >> [clears throat] >> retirements the last few years. We continue to increase the amount we need to cover the severance payouts. But again, we were just a little short this year. So, we're asking to increase that fund to 200 by $250,000 to cover the amount we need to pay uh the severance um severance payouts that come in for the last month of the year. So,
019is that entire $8.2 million in purchased services strictly transportation costs? I believe so. Yeah. And as you pointed out, 4.2 of the 8.2 are offset by other reductions. Um what is driving the increase in salaries, wages, and fringe benefits? That's so it's such a small amount. I started to try to dig in to figure out of the $227 million why we're seeing a $151,000 increase and I just didn't have time to dig that deep down in. But it is, you know, it's We did have our negotiations conclude and we had a 3% increase and we paid out retro. So, it could be attributable to some of those factors. Uh I would ask that you um try to dig that Okay. between now and the rules committee. Sure. Okay. Um any other questions for the treasurer
020about the appropriation adjustment? Madam President? Thank you, Chairman Montgomery. Not so much a question, just to say that I see these transfers are from the general fund, so that's a little bit different than what we're usually seeing. And so, it's important, yes, that these items come before the finance committee, which is why it was referred back to the finance committee so that we can get a better understanding as to what's happening. Also, I'm noting that that's because of the significant transfers because of the the vans and transportation. And that is very important to note. This is a significant transfer as we're in the midst of the van negotiations. And so, this is just the effect that it has on our budget is is really something that we want to keep a sharp eye on. So,
021I just thank the finance chair and the finance committee for for paying attention to this. And I just hope that as we go forward that these items will continue to come before the finance committee so that we can have the open discussion on these types of items so that we get no surprises as it relates to our budget, particularly our general fund budget. Thank you, Madam President. Any other questions or comments on on this one? Uh well then, I would ask for a motion to move this to the rules committee on May the 4th uh pending some supplemental information from the treasurer. So moved. I will second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? It would help if I didn't turn my mic off. Uh next up is item number 3.01, a resolution for the North
022High School Construction Project. Uh this was a resolution that was previously uh discussed at the Finance and Capital Management Committee. Uh subsequently, there have been I have been in several uh communications with Executive Director Folk with the legal counsel for the construction project, with the treasurer, um just to kind of make sure uh that we have I have and can communicate to the committee and board a full understanding of what the sequence of events are, what uh our role is in the selection of subcontractors and how the information gets conveyed. And I literally right before this meeting rolled out of a meeting with those those individuals uh to better understand that. So, as it relates to this resolution, there was a core team that was put together by the district to review and score the
023proposals that were qualified to be reviewed. I believe there were six submitted. We ended up reviewing four and scoring four. That scoring was included in the committee packet at the last meeting. They're included in today's committee packet on on board docs. So, I won't rehash the scoring on there except for to say that the number one and number two scored vendors were about $1,800 apart and 3.2 scoring points apart. So, it was I think 99.6 versus 96.4 or whatever, something close to that. But, I know it was 3.2. And so, these are real close and I believe Executive Director Folk told me earlier today she's never seen any as close as these two are. Um all of that being said and I know I've asked questions about local hiring and labor unions and all of
024those things that are important to large construction projects, but as it relates to our role in this process in a in assigning a ranking, the the Ohio Revised Code says that we put together a team, they ranked them and our perfunctory duty is to uh sign off on that ranking and let the teams move forward with negotiations with that number one ranked firm. That does not mean that the end result of those negotiations will end up with that firm. It's likely, but in that negotiating process, we can ensure that the contract language uh includes those preferences and provisions that will help us achieve the goals that we want to achieve in building a very large capital project with the team that has the best skill set and training to be able to do that. Um
025as a part of this process, the board will have the ability to work with the team to look at how things are reviewed. The board will have approval on the subcontractors that are awarded jobs in the different components of this process. The construction manager at risk's job is to run the project for us. We also have our owner's rep who's here with us today that will be our voice in that room and in that process. So, all that being said, this resolution is merely an approval of the ranking and from there, we will have conversations as to what the board's goals and preferences are in this. And I'm assured that the board has a seat at the table in those discussions and in those decisions and I will ensure that we have a butt in
026that seat as those conversations are taking place. So, with that, I will open it up to members of the committee or other members of the board for any questions or comments. Seeing and hearing none, I would ask >> Oh, sorry, Madam President. Recognizing that this is dealing with the ranking, I still don't remember receiving an answer to the question that I asked about this particular company also having responsibility for building of another one of our schools and how was that uh how was that looking as it relates to this company being able to make sure that we are completing the North project on time. Executive Director Folk, would you like to address that, please? There we go. Chairman Montgomery, Member Jaros, President Sykes, Miss Molnar and Miss Kelly and Superintendent. It is with great pleasure
027I could advise you that this was well planned. They can do both if so elected and awarded and negotiated a contract. They have enough team members as they are currently closing out a previous project and will have the team available should they be elected to do so. So, we do not have any problem with a timeline should be contracted and negotiated with this company ranked number one for both projects. That is not an issue that came up at all during the process of review. Madam President, does that address your question or would you like some more information before the Rules Committee? Well, you know, I have no reason to not believe what the director is saying. However, you know, it would be nice to have a bit more detail than what I'm hearing from you.
028The actual company is currently closing out a very large construction for another school district and the time therefore they're having available staff and longevity for this project. They realize it was start in this particular year need to be done by 2029 in August with the following subsequential process going through 2030. They [snorts] have the staff available and the knowledge to do so as they do multiple programs at the same time throughout the area. So, do you have a timeline? Chair. Yes, if >> Director, do you have a timeline? >> Actually, the proposed timeline would be if the board approves the ranking and we get a negotiated contract. Usually with the standards that Chairman Montgomery discussed, that usually you will see that come back hopefully within approximately 30 days, which would be probably sometime in June.
029Once they are negotiated and you have approved the contract as noted, then we will start the process and they will gather their teams to be on site to work with our owner's rep and the core team and members of the district to put that timeline together. They are aware that this would be a project that the students would remain at North. This is not something at this point we can self-swing. They currently have a job in which they have been working on a project that's within 20 ft of another similar project. So, they are well aware how to self-swing it. They have walked the site. They have already talked to the owner's rep. They've done some other outreach to move that timeline forward. You could see project leading. You've got schematic design started. You've got
030to go into DDs and construction so we could see some movement on site in 2027, which would allow us a two-year process to hopefully get done in August of 29 and then continue to into 2030. Madam President. Chair. Chair, thank you, Director. I can appreciate everything that you said. However, I would when you bring the information back, if you would provide the timeline with Miller South and where the company is and at what point is the North project going to kick in and what point is are those staff people going to actually find themselves physically on the property of the North project and how that is that is all planned to take place so that we can do everything that we can do to make sure that we're not having cost overrun, that North is
031getting the proper attention that it deserves as well as making sure that Miller South is continuing to receive the attention they deserve when you have one company responsible for two very large projects in my mind. Okay. Two very large projects. They may be not so large for the company, but in my mind, these are two very large projects and not just because of the size, but because of the money that we're asking our citizens to be responsible for paying. So, we want to make sure that both of these projects are handled in a way that neither neither school or students within those schools are in any way not receiving a timely manner to see their school built and for all of them to be able to be in the school on the designated in the
032designated time that we have said that they will be back into this into their new schools. President Sykes, I can update you. We had a meeting with the Kemper project today. We received the four permits for us to proceed with the actual underground work. So, we have started the GMP for phase one and we're working on phase two. So, to get those permits from the city and the county allows that work to proceed on a timely manner at this time. Thank you. Executive Director Folk, I would ask that you provide that timeline for the board before the Rules Committee, if you could. I will. And as a part of that, when I ask for a motion, I will have it be pending that information being received. And as a side note, both this resolution and
033the one with the appropriation, as we've done in in other motions that were pending information, we will pull them from the Rules Committee if the information's not received. So, just want to make sure that that's clear. With that, Mr. Jaros, I do. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the current Pfeiffer Miller South project now projected to be $3 million over budget or more than what was expected. >> That was correct. Um it went The last time I was here at the finance committee, we did advise the committee that you were at 79 million as opposed to 76 and we were working on what we hopefully do badly term value engineering. We were working through that. We're making adjustments. We're also including the e-rate program that should help reduce that budget as well and
034we are waiting for the hopeful LFI agreement to move the money to our project at that point and then I did report at the board meeting on Monday that with the closeout of segments four, five, and six at the OFCC um projects that completed with Garfield, we could expect another 1.9 million to be returned from the state to the treasury. So that would be available for construction as well. Okay, so that was with CT Taylor leading that project. So they had a number, then it was 3 million more than expected. And then we're finding ways to offset that $3 million over budget. >> So if I may ask, they have estimating strategies as one of the scores on the sheet and they got a 10 out of 10, whereas the runner-up got a nine out
035of 10. So based off of just a few months, already CT Taylor has mis estimated the project. >> They also um estimated the project originally. This is the cost of construction as it comes out. They also have in-house estimators and again, the project for Miller South did have some delay in which time frames they could be actually appointed by the board to get this under process and that was originally, if you remember Mr. Gerow, the original project was 63 million. >> [snorts] >> Uh that was originally brought to the board and by the time we got the SDs done, got into the DDs, got CT Taylor to be able to do this, this is the cost of construction to go up and the time it went from 63 million to 76 million and then we
036was started to go out on the street. But they also saved in segment one, which is where they are now under the GMP, uh a very good amount looking at what came in after the estimate was done and it was to a tune of 650,000. So we are trying to do everything we can on that project to value engineer it to meet the original 76 million, but you needed to be advised that some of the cost for construction was exceeding the original estimate of 76 million. Thank you. And now with the 1.9 million you're mentioning that we're getting back from the previous constructions, I know part of that was supposed to be dedicated to the Booktel project. Is that still the case or is it a different Is it a different set of funds? >>
037that is not the case with the Booktel project. That one was something that came out of the general fund. It's out of our regular capital improvement. We said it might be done, but we had it in our regular capital projects for this year. So that is all to general fund. Right now that 1.9 is not allocated anything. Mr. Chair, that's my point that I want to make that right now the board has not allocated that money to anything. >> That is correct. >> So to make a basic statement that that money 1.9 will go to the Miller South or the North project is not a decision that the board has made. Thank you. Right, cuz I was under the assumption that at least 500,000 of that would go toward completing the the excess in the
038Booktel project and maybe even hopefully I was hoping that even the whole amount would go to the Booktel project to save the general fund. So now I'm hearing it might be for offsetting the 3 million in excess for this project. So I think there may need to be some clarity on that as well. Mr. Chair, now do hear you hear that's what the director is saying. That is not what the board has approved. I agree. Yeah. I mean at the end of the day we we got to figure out how we're going to do it no matter what, whether the 1.9 goes into the general fund or there's a shortage. Right now we're 2.5 million to the better. Not positive. We were going to be short $8 million. Now we're down closer to five and
039hopefully that'll continue to trend. But yes, I agree with the president in those statements that that has not been allocated. Are there any other questions about this item? Member Kelly? Thank you, Chair Montgomery. I am I've attended um some of these meetings, too. Only two. Uh but enough to know that there are a lot of information There's a lot information being delivered across the room cuz there's so many people involved in these projects. Specifically the one uh the our North High School project. To further my understanding, one of the things that were brought up were if and it has been brought up in our committee meetings as well and our school board meetings is the idea if we will continue to house our students in the original building or if we should consider another option.
040Has there been further conversation about that? If not, I will forward my questions to Chair Montgomery including Director Folk uh in the list of questions that I have. Yes, there has been a further update um as reported out last week. Uh one of the considerations was would Akron U be able to take the students back into what we would know as the Central Howard building. We had a discussion with campus director Haskell who overdoes campus planning and um staging. He advised that the building currently is housing a small area for maintenance vehicles used on their property. At this point, the HVAC system, which is original to the building, is not operable um and cannot be controlled and he also advised that the security system is on its last legs. If we were interested in seeking
041a relocation of our students with the beginning of the 27-28 year for this project, the building needed a large modification of uh areas in order to make it warm, safe, and dry. It would be multiple million dollars and there was nothing in their budget to do that. So he did not recommend for us to go there. Um we did have a slight discussion of a location outside of the district. Um as you are aware, um we have known that our compatriots to the north building new high school in Cuyahoga Falls and we kind of reached out to see what was happening with their buildings there. There have been no decisions. They currently have a high school that they're not using. Um we have not made any real arrangements, but as you are aware during our
042discussion to take the students out of Akron would be um a a not only a cost, it would be a transportation. How did we then deal with the other services that the students currently have uh located within the North building at that some of those would not necessarily operate. We talked about the FRC may not be family resource center may not be located. Some of the other items like the child care may not be located. So we've had in-depth discussions, but have not been able to necessarily find a location that could easily take 1,000 people and the services that we currently operate on that campus. Thank you, Director Folk. Thank you, Ms. Kelly. Any other questions or comments on this one? Mr. Chair. Madam President. Thank you. Uh Chair, I'm just not clear on why
043we're spending our time on figuring out how to move the students outside of North High School and certainly not how to move the students outside of this district. So, you know, when we submitted this for proposals, the idea the proposal indicated that the students would stay within the school district as Booktel students stayed when the school was being built. So I'm just not sure and I guess I would ask this to the superintendent. Why are we looking at options to take the students outside of North High School? Thank you for the question, President Sykes. It was brought to our attention that that the it would be the a more efficient process if the students were not on campus and there's a possibility that we would even save some time with the building project if they
044were not there including needing to have space to house their different materials and equipment. Um so it was a question that was raised uh for us to consider. Not that we have to do it, but we were asked if we would consider it. Dr. Molnar? Thank you, Chair. Um two questions. First, when you mention the Central Howard building, are you referring to the building that used to house our STEM high school students, but then we redid Robinson because we could not fix Central Howard for those students, so then we would put Is that the same building? >> building, yes, ma'am. Okay. Uh Yikes. Um second question. So, this resolution that was moved by the committee members today to approve the rankings was part of this ranking process the consideration or the the notion that this
045would be a self-swing and the students would stay in the building. Yes, it was. So, what does that do to this ranking? I thought you were moving I thought you voted to roll >> to but we haven't yet. Oh. Um. Just clarifying them. >> Sorry. Thank you. >> You're fine. Nope. Um. So, what does that do to the ranking if they were if they were ranked uh 2.8 points higher than the person above them. It was a 99.4 to a 96.2 based on a self-swing and then we don't self-swing. What does that mean? >> It would not necessarily change the ranking because it was just an option to discuss. They were asked during the interview process if the opportunity came, what would they propose? It was just a question during the interview process. The ranking
046was based on the actual criteria that we ranked on. Any follow-ups? Any other questions? Madam Superintendent? There was also some additional discussion about cost and possible savings if we were to move into a swing space. And so, again, we're not advocating. We were just asked to explore um, the possibilities. Um, at the very beginning when we first talked about this, we didn't think Central was an option. But again, just to make sure we could rule it out with the board if asked, we did look into it so we could confirm that that is not an option for us. So, if you would like I'm not sure if during the next Finance Committee you would like to have more information about what the cost options were. Um, there's some pros and cons to it even through
047my lens. Uh, we were already told that uh building it where it is right now, we could uh update our gymnasium because we would never get a gymnasium that size again. But if we move, there's some other benefits. So, again, you know, it was just a discussion to sort of raise our awareness, bring it to the board for you to be able to weigh in. But as everything stands today, the resolution that's before us is a scoring based on it being done on site. That is correct. >> questions to see if they were options to change it. So, if even if we were to My correct me if I don't say this correctly. Even if we were to eventually find a solution that would let us go off site, one, the timeline of making that
048decision is like almost over. And second of all, if it were to come to be, we would almost have to re- look at the scope of the project, not necessarily the bidding, the scoring, but it would change the timeline. It would change their response to the negotiations, no? Barbie, you want to You want to come up? So, one of one of the wonderful things about um, working with uh CMR delivery system is not just that you get a chance to see all of um, the pricing information and get to uh select your own subcontractors, but it also allows us to negotiate time frame and duration during the process of the build. Every GMP can amend uh the duration of the project. So, if in fact, you know, we were able to save time, what we
049would end up doing is we would change that project duration per a GMP and uh general conditions and uh personnel costs would be reduced. And and am I right in thinking when we got to whatever packet or segment had the site work in it, that's where that would be defined as to where they're laying it down, how they're doing it? Absolutely. Yes, almost every um CMR project has multiple GMPs. Um, not every single one of them. Everybody likes to get an early site package so that you can uh get the site in order while you're uh purchasing materials and sometimes it's a time of year issuance that it becomes very helpful to the overall timeline. So, in the first GMP, um we would start to know yes, what has we would absolutely know what's the
050decision. Also want to clarify that it was um really um as um we started to look at the project, um we wanted to let the board know that an option to move kids off site would allow more money to be put towards the building, towards kids. Um, unfortunately, and I think I talked about this last time we were together, that site is not very forgiving. As soon as you move one way or another, you're either building building retaining walls or you're dealing with some unsuitable uh fill material that needs to be stabilized. So, um as Ms. Outlaw had had indicated, there's a lot of benefits from uh putting planting a building right in the exact location where North High School currently sits. But it's not a it's not a deal breaker. We have a path
051A and we have a path B. And um we can easily move the design team in one direction or another. And I'll add to this isn't the only uh theoretical question we asked. I mean, we even looked at the topography of where the football field's going to go and the idea of the property behind High School and it's something that we evaluated and isn't something that would work. I know that was part of the conversation that were team. So, there are just a lot of things that when something around uh this dais gets brought up, we take it back to the project team and they ask the question and we find an answer. So, any other [clears throat] questions or comments on this one? I Yeah. If would you mind if I add some additional
052information for member Jerosis' question regarding the estimating? Um, I think it's important to note that um one of the things that you have to understand is on every project every member of the project is responsible for cost, budget, and time frame. And so consequently, it is not just the construction manager that holds all the cards on how much a building costs or if there's been an increase in the budget. Sometimes we see owners that say, "Oh, I forgot. We have to have four extra classrooms. Square footage equals dollars." Or sometimes we have an architect that says, "Oh, I'd really like to make sure that we incorporate this." Or "Oops, I forgot this at the earlier stage of the project." So, in regards to your comfort level with the estimating ability of our number one ranked
053team, um I am very, very confident that um that increase in cost had nothing to do with their inability to actually monitor the market. Um, that there were other items that were involved in that. Anything else? Uh, if not, I would ask for a motion to move this to the Rules Committee on May the 4th pending the information requested by President Sykes on the consecutive timeline between Piper Miller South and the North High School project. Before the motion. So, the next steps here when this mo- would be approved as a committee would be saying that the board would authorize and direct the committee with the assistance of the legal counsel and project architect to begin negotiations with CT Taylor. That would be what would happen, presented to Rules Committee and then followed to the uh
054the membership of the regular board meeting. And then we would that that we'd be moving forward with CT Taylor as as the board would approve. The the board would have to come back to the board. So, my understanding and legal counsel can correct me if I misspeak. This authorizes the ranking and lets the negotiation begin. The in the packet, they were already given a draft contract. Uh, once it's authorized for them to begin the negotiations with the number one ranked firm, which is CT Taylor, a new draft will be sent back out saying this is the one for you to mark up, which would have any of the requirements, preferences that we the board would want included in that would go out to them and they either would agree to the terms of that contract
055or our proposed changes. And I mean, technically, they could drop out at that time, but that's not normal. They don't wouldn't normally do that. But then, once that contract is negotiated between the legal team and the project team and the number one ranked firm, that would come back to the board to be approved. And then, if the dis-approved, then we go into the the bidding process and we're worrying the subcontractors and all those subcontractor awards come back to the board as well as the owners to say, "You need to bid to these firms on these services and we want you to do this." And um the uh best best something um best value, thank you. Um the best value portion of it is we can pick who gets the awards that uh for each segment
056of the bid as they come in. So, that's how it was described to me by the legal counsel. Uh did I misspeak on any of that? Um so, it'll come back to the board several times in different phases of where we're at in the in the process. This allows them to start the draft of that contract uh and we uh if the board so chooses to assign one of us or if we sit with the core team meeting, we can have that conversation as to what's included in that draft contract when it goes to C.T. Taylor. So, we don't have to agree to their terms, they don't have to agree to ours. We negotiate it out and see where we end up. And just as from the legal perspective, because the rankings are as they
057are, are we committed to the number one option? Do we have to use number one option? Are we legally required to accept the scoring as is and go with the number one option? Would you like that come up, please? >> [clears throat] >> Good afternoon. I'll do my best to address your question. The answer is you do not have to accept it, but you can't change it. It's either a it's either a yes or a no. If you if your vote is yes, then it goes forward with the process that Chairman Montgomery described. If the answer is no and I've and I've given an opinion letter as to the as to the legal reasons why you can say no, as long as it's one of those reasons, then you can say no. The only thing
058you can't do is change the order. Okay. So, we can select any option we'd want technically as a board to recommend to the commit to the No, I probably wasn't clear on that. So, so you either approve the ranking as stated 1 2 3 4 as presented to you by the selection committee, or you say no, we reject that and then you start over. We we would the the other nuclear option is to scrap everything and go through the whole pro- which would delay the project significantly. >> if you I can say confidently there's no basis to disqualify any of the candidates. They all meet the legal requirements. So, you could find if in your judgment the committee did not have sufficient evidence to support the rankings and that that deficiency could not be cured
059and we did go through a supplemental RFI process to get you all additional information. If after doing that, you still believe that there's not enough information to support the rankings, your choice is to reject the rankings, disband the committee, constitute a new committee, and start the process over again. Okay. That's choice B. Choice A would be to approve the rankings as presented to you by the committee and then follow the process that Chairman Montgomery described for negotiating a contract. Okay. So, it is approve the rankings as they are and begin with the top uh top ranked best value, or rejecting and starting from all from all over. Correct. Got it. Assuming you believe the committee did not have enough information to support the rankings that were presented to you. You would have to make that
060actual finding that that in the judgment of the board that that decision cannot be supported. Okay. Okay. Dr. Bolner. Thank you, Chair. Um clarification on one of the things that you said that approving the construction manager at risk does not approve everything else for the whole rest of the project, that there are other items that will come to the board downstream, for lack of a better term. Um so, my question is for the Miller South project, just for context, have some of those other things already come to the board downstream? Are we still anticipating those to come to us? So, I'll start, you can add for anything I leave out. Um the I mean the construction manager at risk has already been awarded for that project, so that part has happened. Uh negotiations have happened,
061we've approved the first packet for the early site work. So, that came to the board. So, a few things for that project have already come to the board based on conversations we had earlier. Uh similar to what I mentioned for this project, uh we are still early enough in Miller South Pifer to interject ourselves into the subcontract awards for the segments that are going to come after the early site work. So, that's another piece of the puzzle. So, we're going to jump into that project in a way in which we haven't today to get ahead of that to where we are. And I'm happy to say on North, we're going to start that from the very beginning. But but so the answer to your question is yes, there are pieces parts that the board has
062already approved on that project. We're going to go down that same path with this. Uh we're just getting information a little bit ahead of schedule on this one. Did I leave anything out? Nope, that's it. Each time there is a guaranteed maximum price proposal, which is the number that you agree the work for that phase will not exceed, that has to have board approval to proceed. That's a legal requirement. So, that's when you would vote. You would vote on each of those GMP proposals as they come to you. The development of the GMP proposal is when you would have an opportunity to meet with your construction manager and give your input on which subcontractors they're selecting to do the work that's contained within that scope of work that represents that that particular GMP proposal. And
063that's the process Chairman Montgomery was talking about being actively involved in on North, but you also have the ability to be as actively involved in that as you want on Pifer for Miller South. It's just we've already approved uh the early site package. Um but there's still more packages to come. So, to the extent that you would want to have involvement in that, it's the same table, same seat, and whoever you want in that chair would would have the ability to do that. Other questions, concerns? Uh Mr. Chair, I don't have a question or concern for the attorney, but I do just want to make a clarification that when a committee refers something to rules, then the rules determine the rules agenda. So, to say that this absolutely will be on the May May 4th
064agenda, it's something that the rules committee will make that determination. So, I don't want anyone to say, well, you I heard it was going to be on the May 4th agenda and then you see the May 4th agenda and it's not on the May 4th agenda. Or very well could be, but that is a decision of the rules committee. Thank you. Yeah, the finance and capital management is just making the recommendation to move it to rules. That's that's correct. Any other questions or comments? Uh I would ask for a motion to move this to the rules per- to propose to move this to the rules committee on May the 4th pending that additional information. So moved. I will second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? All right, the eyes have it. Thank you. Uh item
065number four is items referred to other committee from other committees. We have none. Item five is old business. We have none. Item six is new business. Uh we just one item I'd like to mention uh here uh that it was brought to my attention today. I know everybody on the board and I know members of the media for sure know that our BoardDocs was down uh nationwide earlier this week uh and I believe I mentioned this at a prior committee meeting that we were actively looking at converting to the Diligent system, which is the new parent company uh of BoardDocs, uh but definitely much more robust. And so, the uh timeline has been uh uh presented to us that we could move it up. Uh it is uh to hopefully get that upgrade sooner rather
066than later. Uh I didn't obviously, cuz I just found out about it today, I couldn't add it as an agenda item, but I wanted to bring it up in new business uh that I will uh because it's about the agenda software, um I'm I'm I want to talk to the rules committee about taking that piece there uh to get moving if we can work through a process on that, uh we could potentially start uh the implementation of that June 1st. So, sooner rather than later, we originally thinking it wouldn't be able to start until July 1st. Uh but if the rules committee and the board uh believes that that is a worthwhile endeavor, uh we can get hopefully get started a little bit sooner. So, uh we'll have additional comments on that, but I just
067wanted to bring it to everybody's attention uh that hopefully we can have a discussion on that very soon. Um last up on the agenda is adjournment. Do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. I will second it. All in favor? I. Any opposed? We are adjourned at 5:28. Thank you.