Finance & Capital Management Committee Livestream - April 15, 2026

001Mhm. >> Mhm. >> All right, good evening. Welcome to the Finance and Capital Management Committee of the Akron Public School District. My name is Phil Montgomery. I am the chair of this committee. I'm joined by Vice Chair Reverend Harrison, member Jarosch, and all of the other members of the board in addition to Superintendent Ali and Treasurer Bowers. The first item on the agenda is approval of the minutes from the previous meeting. Do I have a motion? >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? The eyes have it. Thank you. Next up is the request to address the committee. Before I open it up for the general public. I would like to invite Jason Legg from the Laborers Union local to come up and address the committee about work that

002the local labor union is doing with in our school district and with our scholars. And Jason, please. >> How you guys doing? My name is Jason Legg. I'm the business manager of Laborers Local 894 out of Akron, Ohio. I seen that it is a very big project coming up North High School and just kind of want to explain what the Laborers do, the impact that we have with our youth and with our community. We have our learn program. It's a book to CLC. A lot of our signatory contractors as rule and they have donated the concrete pad, all the concrete that was used for their pad when they built their facility for storage for their football equipment. Another one of our signatory contractors is Spano Brothers Construction. They donated all the pipe that we use

003for implementing our pipeline class in the learn program. Local 894 is the first in Ohio Valley and Southern States to actually get this curriculum, which is a lion with a curriculum that Buchtel had adopted and put in their school. Since then we've gotten two graduating classes. We have Arvionne Woods. She graduated from Buchtel in the first class. She's down at the Gorge project. We have a couple Wiley chairs. Isaiah Welsh is working for Lenzek Masonry on the Brunswick High School project. They also helped build the Cuyahoga Falls project. We have Zaire Lewis. He works for MZ Russell. He's He's He's part of our apprenticeship program. So what we do is they get trained, they get OSHA 10, they get a scaffold builder user card and some other certifications that helps them get prepared for when

004they do graduate to be able to come out and join our Laborers Union. We also do District 1. We are in every single one of the gymnasiums in Akron Public Schools and on the football field. Where you're going to see a big proud proud sponsorship Laborers Local 894 in a partnership with the Akron public schools. Um, they give us um, they announce the labors union throughout the game and stuff over the loudspeaker at both at all the events and stuff. We also present our donation to the Akron public schools for this at the city series track meet every year. Um, some other things that we do I sit on the advisory board at Boxtel CLC. I spend a lot of time there. We we help the kids we give them a pre-interview to get them

005prepared for when they're going to have to sit in front of people you know CEOs or foremans or whatever it may be to get them prepared to be able to do interviewing processes. We get them set up with their drug test and that way they can get their drug test and then fill the application out online to help them you know build a future and have a career. This isn't just a job. This is a career that we offer the youth. We have Ella High School getting ready to go down to our training center on May 5th to see everything that we offer as the labors union with the training that we got which is all self-funded. We don't ask for no money from any government or anything. We self-fund within and they get the

006top of the line certifications. You're going to get the best trained workers that you can get and then they're going to get the job done in a safely manner and they're also going to get it done on time and under budget. So that's just a little bit about the labors union. I'd love to have an opportunity to maybe even come back and give you guys a little more information and ladies give a little more information on what we do have to offer with the labors as LiUNA and thank you for your time. >> Thank you Jason. I do to wrap that up I do know vice chair Molnar who chairs the instructional policy and student achievement committee is going to be inviting the union to come talk at instructional policy. So a more in-depth review

007will be forthcoming on that. So thank you and thank you for being here today. Are there any other members of the community that would like to address the committee? All right, seeing and hearing none I will turn it over to Treasurer Bowers to review the monthly financial report. >> Thank you, Chairman Montgomery. Uh tonight we're going to go over the March financial report. Um this is our new one-page financial summary. Um and the structure of this on the left-hand side, we list the revenues and expenditure categories and we end with our beginning and ending cash balance. And then each of the six columns to the right of those categories totals revenues and other financing sources and subtracts the total expenditures and other financing uses to arrive at our excess or net amount for the month.

008And we then add or subtract the excess to or from our beginning cash balance. Um in summary, uh for the revenue this month so far this year-to-date, we have received $286.8 million, uh which is about 75 which is 75.81% of our uh total. Um which represents 78 75.8% of our forecasted total. So, it's just very slightly ahead of 75%, which is where we are in the year cuz we are 9 months into the school year. Um and on the expenditure side we've had $276.9 million in expenditures and other financing uses, which is 71.65, so we're about 4% below the forecasted amount, so we're trended about 1.8 million to the good on expenses last month. Um the cash position position down at the bottom, uh we are showing that we are 2.5 million higher than forecasted

009so far this school year. And hopefully this will stick. It seems to be continuing to um grow for us, so let's just hope that that continues through the rest of the school year. >> Uh thank you, Treasurer Bowers. Any questions for the Treasurer from members of the committee or members of the board? Okay. Item 2.02 FY25 financial audit completion. >> So, we just concluded our fiscal year 25 uh financial audit. That runs That period is 7/1/24 through 6/30/25. Uh we received an unqualified audit opinion, which is a clean audit. It's the best report that we can receive from the state auditor's office. It shows that we comply with GAAP and it confirms that our financial position is fairly presented without material misstatements. And it ensures reliability for our stakeholders. Um The key aspects of that

010opinion are that the financial records are prepared in accordance with GAAP, which is which governs the way we're supposed to record all of our transactions. And the opinion covers all financial statements, including the balance sheet, income statement, and statement of cash flow. Um What it means for us is that it enhances our credibility with lenders, investors, other stakeholders. It shows that our internal controls and records are in good order. It implies that the auditor has no reservation regarding the accuracy of this financial reporting. >> Any questions for the Treasurer by members of the committee or the board on the financial audit? Okay. 2.03 North High School project note resolution. >> So, for the purpose of continuing to provide funds to pay the cost of constructing, furnishing, and equipment the new North High School, we need

011to issue up to 27.5 million in notes uh in anticipation of the issuance of bonds. Uh the term will be up for up to 1 year issued on a taxable basis. And we're issuing on a taxable basis because we've uh had a slow go to the beginning of this project. Uh we're hoping that this speeds up this school year, and we're on track to do that. And so, when we issue the remaining amount of the debt, the full 80 million next summer, it would be non-taxable. Uh the schedule we're on is to put it send it to Rules Commission on Monday, and then to the following board meeting. >> Thank you, Treasurer Bowers. So, I know we introduced this subject at the last Finance and Capital Management Committee. Uh this month we have the actual

012resolution attached to the agenda. Uh with that, I would open it for any questions from members of the committee or members of the board. Uh if not, can I get a motion to move this to the Rules Committee on April the 20th? >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Thank you. Uh item 2.04, OFCC segments 4A, 5, and 6 closeout. >> So, finally, after 6 years of of working with the state of Ohio, our OFCC segments 4A, 5, and 6 are going to finalize, and we're going to be able to close the the accounts on those book on those uh those uh segments. Uh the bottom line for us is that we're going to get $1.8 million from the state. Uh this will cover uh the remaining outstanding

013uh purchases that we made and submitted to them over the course of those projects. And we're hoping that this concludes by the end of the month. >> The uh resolutions for these three closeouts were attached to the agenda. Are there any questions from members of the committee or members of the board? >> I I I just >> Uh >> Mr. Harrison. >> Um thank you, Mr. Chair. Um the OFCC, if you can just give us what that >> That's the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission >> Commission, yeah. >> So that's related to the building of the schools. >> Yes, Garfield was the last >> Project. >> And this 1.9 million dollars is unbudgeted, so it is going to go to hopefully help the bottom line that we continue to see improve in our cash balance, so

014Uh with that, can I have a motion to submit these three resolutions to the rules committee on April the 20th? >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. Uh That will conclude the financial updates. We will now move into the capital management and construction updates, so Executive Director Folk, the Buck- Buck- Doll Press Box 3.01. >> Good evening, Chairman Montgomery, Vice Chairman Harrison, member Jerose, and members of the board, also Treasurer and Superintendent. Uh the Buck- Doll Press Box is moving wonderfully along. I can report that Thomas Electric has installed the 3-in conduit into the school. Synergy is on site during the floor pour, and I actually got a picture to you last week of the floor pour for the concession. Arsen's Concrete did

015the slabs at the concession and bathroom buildings. Summit Testing was on site for the cinder sin- cylinder samples. That is from your concrete. They must be sampled for content and structure, and Matt and the students, who are the masonry students, were on site observing the pour at the end of the concession. So they got to actually see that work done and watch the professionals that are on site to complete that work. It is moving forward, and we have we'll have another update for you at the end of this week. >> Thank you. >> It is also on schedule. >> Great. Uh any questions on the Buck- Doll Press Box from members of the committee or members of the board? Okay, 3.02 Phifer Miller South. >> Uh Phifer Miller South. I wanted to advise the board

016in working with our construction manager at risk and our team. Originally, we had had an increase to $76 million. The construction cost as coming in as we work in from the DDs to the CDs is it now now at 79 million. This is the actual cost that they perceive, not exactly what is happening, but adjustments to the plan continue to move forward to address these continued cost estimates. We did try something new that we have not been able to do before. We had our E-rate consultant, Educational Funding Group, come in. Uh, buildings certainly can qualify for E-rate, which those are support for your network services, etc. We have never been able prior to this to actually put it towards the construction of internal structures. That is called category two. So, we had uh, Mr. Paul

017Cross come in because they've changed some of the standards. We currently have a new bucket of 5-year construction containment funds for category two that starts this year. It is based on a rate of $207 per student. So, you multiply that to your enrollment, it comes out to about 3.8 million. That we go out and we buy switches, we buy upgrades, cabinets, etc. This time we're going to try and put it towards the actual construction cuz we can time it correctly as we do those particular technology plans and we have spent several weeks going over this. We can qualify certain hardware and infrastructure and receive an 85% discount. So, I'll give you an example. If the infrastructure was a million dollars, we can apply for and receive federal support of 85% of that million dollars. That

018helps lower the cost of the construction and still get you qualified to go ahead and move those structures inside. And then I also did want to then advise what Treasurer Bowers had just given that we were finally finished with 4A, 5, and 6 in the maintenance plans. Those allowed us to move forward to finalize this particular section from the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission. Those funds will then be released to APS upon approval of the resolution that you have now moved to the Rules Committee, and hopefully we will see those funds coming forward, and it could also be designated as a possibility to support the estimated cost of this building project. >> Great. Any questions from members of the committee or members of the board? Vice Chair Harrison. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, going

019back to number one, where we have the project estimation is 79 million, reflecting a 3 million increase from the 76 million. >> Yes. >> Um I I know we talked about value engineering. >> Yes. >> So, I would have thought that we would have been going >> We are We are going in that direction. We continue to do that project. This is the cost of inflation in materials from the original items that were put into the POR when it was made, which is the program of requirements. So, we are still working through it. This is just the earliest estimate as we get into this. So, we will be hopefully seeing, just as we did in segment for the original GMP that you approved for the on-site work, we value engineered from that original over $600,000.

020So, we'll continue to work on that. But, we just wanted you to be aware of the inflationary cost of the plan as it moved forward. >> Any other questions? Member Juras? >> For the E-rate program, has that already been incorporated to the 79 million I know it's not it can be applied to the entire 79 million, but for the parts that can be, is that already budgeted in with that expectation? >> no, this is an addition or value engineering of this project because we were able to align it properly because it will be two separate packages and you have to align it correctly and encourage those particular vendors to understand that we're looking for items that are E-ratable. Not everything is E-ratable. Certain things will not be, but we wanted to put that as part

021of the package. So it is to your point not part of the 79 million. It will help decrease the cost of the project. >> Excellent. Any other questions? Okay, I am going to take things slightly out of order and skip 3.03 for the moment and go into 3.04 North High School urgent necessity. >> This urgent necessity relates to a 1955 elevator which is unique and only one that the school has. It has currently not operational due to the generator on the roof that makes it work. And if we got a value dollar for 1955, we've had Otis elevator out who was our service company for elevators. They have determined that we need a new generator. We received a quote from them in the amount of 67,433.85. We are asking this to move forward as an

022urgent necessity because A, they have the ability to service this. They also have the parts available and we would like this to move forward due to the fact that not having an elevator in the school is extremely important for several reasons. One of which we have a number of multiple handicap classrooms in that location and we also currently have a student that is of medical need to use an elevator. So we would like the request to move this forward and the funding cannot be 034 because this is not a CLC. So, this will come out of general fund. >> Questions from members of the committee or members of the board? Dr. Ervin? What's up? Member Jones? >> And is the elevator that's going to be repaired, is that going to be part of this the

023new building as well? Is that the part that's being refurbished? >> No, actually you will get new elevators in the new building. That we wouldn't go ahead um because in order to do a renovation, you usually have to decommission an elevator and once you decommission it, you can't recommission it and you wouldn't want parts from a 1955 elevator in a renovated or new building. >> And so, this is just to make sure that we have an operating elevator for the remainder of the year before we begin >> the remainder of the time that we will be there because we are not expecting to open the new parts of the building until 2029. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions from members of the board? Can I get a motion to move this to

024the rules committee on April the 20th? Jesus. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Thank you. Uh item 3.05 Leggett CLC chiller update. >> I am happy to report that that particular uh item has been installed. It actually I I provided pictures last week. You watched us take the old site off and the new one in and we're currently doing the install and with that install, it we're hoping to have a standard of start date of this Friday to allow that cooling unit to work just like the one we just got here working. >> Did we buy a fence yet? >> Uh we actually have already started to look at that. It's in a concrete structure if you looked at the pictures and we're trying to figure out

025which one is the best way to fence it in. Yes, we are securing that right now. >> Any questions from members of the committee or members of the board? Okay, item 3.06 Pfeiffer and Essex rain damage. >> Uh this is just an update um and this uh actually had to do Wait a minute, we're back to North High School. Wrong one. >> Yeah, 3.06. >> Yes, please. Um as you are aware, on April 1st what uh during spring break, we had two very very serious rain events that day. Uh one was affecting uh Pfeiffer Elementary and the tar roof could not drain correctly. It is a small set of drains. They're only 2 in. The rainwater went under the tar roof and secured and penetrated into the ceilings, which are plaster. Although you may not

026see them in the building, the wet plaster ceiling areas fell to the floor and the staff members were immediately called to assess. We were actually on site that day of Wednesday, April 1st and we worked through with uh two of our vendors, Gandy, who does our asbestos abatement, and Heppa, who also does the plaster removal, and we were able to dispatch them, get it cleaned up, and have air quality testing done prior to the uh notification to the superintendent that we could be in the building for Monday, April the 6th. Then, I do want to make an update to that. We did have an additional issue as plaster gets wet, we had a section fall in room 204 on Tuesday morning. Students were not in the classroom. They were actually able to be assigned to

027another classroom. We contained the classroom immediately, had Gandy and Heppa go out again, service that particular room. That containment is now done. We had another air quality testing also done and then a environmental testing and we got clean air for the building. So, we continued to monitor that. We've had the roofing service company, Innovative Roofing, out on that day, and they were back there again this morning just to make sure that things are working well, and the insurance company was advised of what had occurred. The second one was very unique. It was Essex Elementary building, where we currently had APS online along with the SOAR program, and it rained so hard that all of the playground mulch went right across the driveway into the neighbor's basement through the window. So, Mr. Tavelli, our plumbing foreman,

028was on site immediately at that. He introduced himself to the family, apologized, and made any issues that we would help with clean up. We have not heard anything from that, but we just wanted you to be aware that that occurred, and we have uh are coming up with a new plan to figure out how to keep the mulch in the bed. >> Any questions from members of the committee or members of the board? Okay. So, we're going to circle back to item 3.03, and before I turn it over to Executive Director Folk, I'm going to take a point of privilege to say a few things cuz I have a feeling this one's going to get a little more in the weeds as to how we're going to look at this. Uh as a point of

029context, I uh have tried to attend the core team meetings when I can. I was able to attend this past Wednesday, uh and and talk to the team and hear ongoing updates and concerns about where we are with the scope of the project versus the budget and those things, and that's not part of the context of this agenda item, but just want the committee and the board to be aware that those are very strategic, very in-depth conversations that happen bi-weekly, and uh I try to attend when I can. The committee uh on Friday received all of the bid proposals for the CMR that are attached to the agenda. They were scored on Friday. I take that back, which is why they were a little late on getting attached to the agenda until Monday so they

030could review team scored those on Friday. Those score sheets are attached to the agenda. So hopefully folks had time to review the information contained in there. I know our owners reps is here if we have questions on that. So it will be an update as to where we stand with the construction project but there is also requested proposed resolution to open negotiations with one of the bidding firms for the construction management at risk contract which I'm assuming we're going to get into some dialogue on. So there were four firms again the score cards are there. I did ask Executive Director Folk to prepare summary which I handed out a paper version to members of the board and members of the media. It is a two-pager. The first page is a summary of the rankings from

031the score sheets along with the pricing and some other notes but more importantly for me and I know maybe some other members of the board and committee is at the core meeting last Wednesday I didn't request that Executive Director Folk inquire of the four bid submitters of their status with our local trade unions. And that summary is attached and we can I won't read it for the crowd. Folks can take a look at it and ask the questions but the questions I did ask were do they have a primary location in Akron or do they have a location in Summit County? Are they signatory to a trade union or multiple trade unions? Do they have the ability to self-perform work? Do they have sub contractor relationships in Akron or Summit County? Have they worked with

032APS in the past, and do they meet the edge requirements from the state? Uh Director Folk uh provided those responses. I wanted to get it out. Um It was a late ask, which is why I didn't get it out in advance of this meeting, but it's not a lot uh to digest, so hopefully we can glean some questions from that. Uh I know that we're not required as a school district necessarily to be part of uh prevailing wage or Davis-Bacon cuz it's not federally funded, but that doesn't mean we don't need to be or want to be. So, I want to open it up for conversation amongst the board members, committee and board members as to what's in front of you both in terms of the scorecard and the price, as well as the information

033that has been provided uh regarding local and union relationships, and we uh we'll get through that conversation, then we can talk about the proposed resolution and where we go from there. So, before we get into the resolution and the actual CMR part, uh Executive Director Folk, if you can give us an update on the project as a whole first, and then we'll we'll jump into that part. >> more than happy to do that. >> Thank you. >> Um we have, as you know, your design team is Hasenstab, and they are currently working through the last parts of a very long, detailed conversation with the team regarding the program of requirement. Um we are above the status of what we would think of square footage. Uh currently, the budget would probably do about 100,000 180,000 square

034feet, and we're close to 230,000 square feet. So, we obviously need to keep that in mind, but we want to service the students with what they need in order to provide their particular educational process that they currently have at the building. We have also made uh outreach to uh the planning committee talked to them at the city. We contacted traffic. We have been in contact with also the fire department because they all surround us. One of the things that we have talked about is there a way as you are aware to possibly consider doing this project without having the students and staff on site because it certainly would impact the ability to move the project along in a more quickly fashion as opposed to a self swing. We have looked at the property to the

035north. It is currently closed. It is up for sale. It doesn't have a lot of space on it, but it is available for 1.2 million dollars. We I just wanted to let you know that that was something we looked at because one of the things we have to do in this project is also look down for laydown space. Where would we put a construction trailer? Where would we also put product as it comes on site? And I will be honest with you every one of the vendors that came in on the CMR did not know that we had this information in our background, but they were asked where they would outreach lay down and some of them had been very good to even go and look at it for on their behalf. What were they

036looking for parking for? How would they isolate the construction site from the school site? So it was a very active and very well done presentation by all four of them. And we just wanted you to be aware that we are looking. I made an outreach very quietly to the planning director at the city to see if he could give us any options for possible relocation of students understanding that there would be a cost to that along with how do I get the kids to the site, which we have done, you know, in the past for those of you that understood that. So, I also am in the in the process of trying to contact our old famous friends, the University of Akron, to see if there's anything there because they also might have something that

037they could suggest. They are educational site as well. Um so, we are looking for options to make this a very flowing construction project, no matter who it is, but we certainly need the CMR to move this forward because we're at a phase that they need to be part of this project. Thank you. >> Any questions on the update portion? >> If you do have questions, I also have legal counsel and the owners right behind us. Thank you. >> Yeah, when you mentioned that moving them offsite, it would make the process go along quicker. Are we talking about a month or are we talking about months? How much quicker are we looking at? >> you would probably look to if you could find a space to move them offsite, say at the end of the 26-27

038year, and they would remain offsite until the building opens in 2029. So, I will give you an example, Mr. Gerace. Um when we were doing the rental ad for the East High School Complex TLC, East actually moved into the Central Howard building for the duration of the project, and we made arrangements to have all the services provided at that location cuz at that point we owned the building and we're not using it, and then we made sure that they got back in time. So, that would be the type of project you're looking for. >> Okay, so the target date of when the project is supposed to be completed stays the same or it might be done faster? >> It could be done faster if it would be um a site that could be truly a

039construction site similar to what is occurring now at the Piper Miller South Site at the Kemper location. It might move it up faster. I don't know exactly how much faster, but it would also allow us to do the renovation uh and demolition in a much more timely fashion that we could maybe take 6 months to a year off of it, but I can't guarantee it. It depends on exactly what the final plans are. >> I appreciate the kind of ballpark estimate of what that could look like. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions on the update? Okay. So, as we move into the CMR piece of this and I want to I'm going to split it in two. We're going to start with the scoring and the information that was provided in advance

040and kind of where we are and then we're going to get to the the labor side of it. And I'm going to start with a question that's I have that's part of the first whereas of the resolution which is the review team. Is there a reason why the owner's rep or another the review team to me in terms of review reviewing a construction project of this size and looking at the list that's here and I'm not I mean not that these folks haven't reviewed them before, but was there an additional layer of review that isn't just a list of APS staff staff members? Like were were were the owner's rep involved in this review process? Like were there any other firms or or folks involved in the review other than this list of folks in

041the resolution? >> The actual attendance at the actual four presentations included the people listed in those. Those are your APS representatives. Yes, Westfield was uh present. Both Mr. Shigalis and Mr. Shigalis were available. We had the design team. We had representative from Hassonstab, Ms. Fry along with Mr. Chuck. We had our legal counsel there and we also had Mr. Chaplin. So, our design teams and owner teams are there. The reason it is listed as the way it is is they do not get to have a vote. That's why it's part of it. They're fully a part of the conversation and they can give an advice and they can give us reason to think one way or another, but they are not the reg- regulatory persons that can actually determine the final. But, we gave a

042full list of everybody that was the representatives for APS that day. We did ask other people to attend and they attended Yeah, or they could not attend and we were very happy to have the people that we had. We had our um you know, our facilities people, myself, we had the principal, we had the lead for the high schools, Ms. Kerns. We also had uh Ms. Car- Dr. Carla Chapman, who also was there as our community relations person. So, we tried to cover everything that we could internally to make sure that we had a good view of from our side of the house as well. >> So, just to be clear, the owner's rep was in the four interview meetings or were they also in the scoring meeting as >> They were through the whole

043process. >> Okay. >> So, they were in for all four presentations and the discussion that followed during the scoring process, yes. >> Okay, I just wanted some context for how we arrived at that. So, with that, I will open it up to questions about the scoring. Ms. Kelly. >> Uh thank you, Chair Montgomery. That was my question if we could briefly discuss the scoring process. Cuz we the scores there's four um firm names to rank this above 95% and then two score within the 70 to 75% range. So, if you could um just share how the scoring process worked, that would help me kind of follow along with the conversation a bit more. >> Sure. >> Thank you. >> Secretary Dr. Falcon. >> And I would like to at this time call up legal counsel

044Harps to this because he helped us actually do the scoring and he can explain because it is a weighted score. Um pricing does take 45 points out of the 100 and he can explain the process uh you know, in a more detail to make your understanding fully. Council Harps. >> Just remember none of us are attorneys. >> That's good. You don't want to be. Um okay, thank you uh Ms. Falcon. Thank you all for the opportunity to address. Um as legal counsel for the district I'm here to answer whatever questions you have and we can get as much detail as helpful to you for uh decision-making purposes. But the the process we followed is that which is outlined in the Ohio Revised Code. Um and it's referred to as best value selection and that's the

045process that we followed uh for the selection of the construction manager at risk to deliver this project. It's a two-part process that goes through a uh request for qualifications which we did. Then we shortlisted these four firms that were scored from that list and then they are invited to submit a technical and pricing proposal based on the criteria that your committee uh gave to them as to what they wanted to get submissions on. And that was in a written RFP document that was released and you all should have that or have seen it or it's available if you want to look at it. They submitted detailed proposals back to us and half of that proposal was a pricing proposal and the other half was a a narrative statement of how they proposed to deliver the

046project and meet the criteria that you asked them to address in their proposal. And then we gave them a we used a spreadsheet which you have copies of those. Those are the score sheets that were submitted. And that's based on an OFCC form. So even though this is not an OFCC project my experience is that we still like the OFCC process. It is a very good process for getting to a best value selection methodology. So, we decided to use it in this case and so we followed it and and that's where the spreadsheet came from. It's it's not a document that I created or anyone created. We borrowed it from the from the state. And they use a weighted formula. 45% of the total score, it's a numerical score, comes from the pricing proposal and

04755% of their score comes from the description of how they plan to deliver the project and meet the criteria that we've asked them to submit on to be scored on. And then the prices are normalized and you can see the calculations that are laid out in the score sheets to how we get to that point. We asked them to submit a general conditions cost, personnel cost so we could get an apples-to-apples comparison of each of the four candidates. And the prices are reported on the on the sheet that you referenced. Those are just budgets though. Those aren't actual prices. So, don't think of it as a bid because it's not. It's a proposal based on some assumptions that we asked them to make. One of them being that the cost of the work would be

048$72 million and the other being that it would be a 36-month construction project schedule. So, if that cost of work goes up, their price will go up. If it goes down, it'll go down. If it takes longer, it'll go up. If it takes less, it'll go down. So, that's just to get us relative numbers for comparison purposes and budgets for purposes of evaluating who you all think is the best value candidate for this particular project. Then we all met last Friday and each team had 45 minutes to present verbally. They brought their teams, the the people that they proposed to use on this project, gave nice detailed presentations which I believe are part of the materials that you've been provided. Your committee asked questions. Uh, Westfield was there, they asked questions. Uh, Hazard Stop folks

049were there, they asked questions. I was there, I don't ask questions. I'm just there in case somebody has a question for me. And then once everything is done, uh, we deliberate. Um, it's like jury deliberation is what we call it, and everybody talks, um, collaborates, and discusses what they heard from each of the presenters, and then they go through the criteria that's represented on the score sheet. They assign numerical values to each of these criteria, uh, based on their judgment. As Ms. Folk said, uh, legal counsel doesn't vote, architect doesn't vote, owner's rep doesn't vote. We legally we're not allowed to, but we're there as advisors. We're there to help assist the the collaborative process. And then ultimately at the end, each, uh, individual team is given a score, and then that's what you see

050on on these sheets. That's put into a final number, and it's like any other score sheet. Uh, the person with the highest number is ranked number one, two, three, and four. That's the process. >> Okay. Thank you. Member Kelly, you good? >> Yes, thank you for asking. >> My pleasure. >> And thank you, sir, for your time. >> Oh, you're welcome. For sure. >> Thank you. Uh, so I I have just a couple questions, if you will. Uh, okay, so when when I read best value, it it and that's the process you use to come up. This is the the process you help guide the district through. Um, so when I hear best value, for me, there's other things of value. How can you quantify Um, well, let me ask a question. On the pricing,

05145% of it is pricing. So, we have number one and number two are, let's say, $2,500 apart. >> Correct. >> So, how is that scored with number one and number two? Is it is it all or nothing, or how does that reflect in the score? >> So, if you if you look on the score sheet, and I'll do my best to describe this. >> Okay. >> Um, but it's down at the bottom and so you're comparing each of the scores to the lowest. So in this particular case, Hammond was the lowest price by like 2,500 bucks. >> Okay. >> CT Taylor was second lowest and then the other there was a bigger spread between the number three and number four. Um and then that that is normalized through the formula that's represented there because those

052two were so close, they basically got the same score. It was it was less than a tenth of a percent difference between them. So for for purposes, they rounded to the same number. >> Okay. Okay. So now when I want to go back to the best value because there's just different things that go into my mind when I say best value. So as these are ranked from one through four, is the district bound to do one if that's not what the district believes is the best value? >> No, it's a it's a subjective process, but you have to follow the revised code. So the revised code does lay out the process. >> Okay. >> And in this case, your committee came up with the numerical scores which are required by the revised code. They require

053a numerical scoring process. So these scores are are there. Now if you want to deviate from them, there are ways you can do that, but they're limited. Your your discretion to deviate from the committee scoring is limited to certain criteria that are outlined in the statute and they're pretty limited things like if there's evidence of fraud or collusion in the bidding and things like that. Um you could deviate from that. Um but you can't just as a as a board, you can't just um know what the right word is. You can't you can't just exercise or or throw out their recommendations and come up with your own. That would that would violate the statutory process of the methodology for the selection. >> Um yeah, that's understood. But as I go back with uh the um

054um Chairman Montgomery's initial Okay. Um when I see the the um and this is I'm not knocking any APS staff. Um but I but I will say um we have business affairs, we have purchasing, we have treasury, we have high school principal, we have facilities worker, we have community relations, we have supervisor of principals. I would say that when you talk about subjective scoring and if you don't have anyone there scoring that is a construction person then um I'm looking I'm not looking for an out, but I'm looking to say when we add in added values of construction relationships and people um it's it's hard to say that one company over another is is the best value when you don't have construction people scoring. >> I think I I if I understand your point correctly

055and I think it's a it's an important question to ask cuz it's what you're getting down to which is who really is the best candidate to deliver this project, not just for other reasons, but can they do it and can they do it right? And that's where I think your your design team and your owner's rep team are critical parts of that interview process. And they were active participants in this process. They asked a lot of questions. They advised your committee on their experiences here locally having worked with many of these construction managers on other projects, having worked with some of the subcontractors that they identified in their presentations were critical subcontractors for uh, their projects and in the way that they do business. So, I do believe that you had good technical representation at

056these interviews with your design professionals and your owner's rep team. They just can't vote on the scores. They can advise, which they did, but they don't they don't have a vote by law. >> So, so I I I'll just I I appreciate that information. Um, and I'll just offer um, I I know there's one person on here that is not a construction person that bless her heart, I wouldn't ask her to vote to build me a house. So, so that's my when we come up with best value, it's just really hard to move forward with a best value. Um, I I think there's some additional things that needed to go into the to the score sheet, Mr. Chair. I think it was some additional stuff that we could look at. >> So, if I >>

057If I may, and I I don't mean to interrupt, but um, I I can't speak to the subjective qualifications of your committee folks. That's that's not my role. But, the the criteria that we used for the scoring, which are the 10 things that are listed here at the top of the sheet, and these values, these these again are largely taken from the OFCC's methodology. We made some minor modifications to them based on input from the committee when we issued the RFP to try to adapt those ideas to this particular project, things that they felt were important. But, largely this is this is a fairly consistent process across many of the ones that the OFCC does, and it we do that on purpose to try to make it consistent among selections. So, So don't get into

058things where people are saying we tried to to to rig it or do something like that. So we try to keep the criteria fairly generic, fairly uniform, and bring a broad spectrum of your folks into the process for discussion. If that if that helps understand a little bit more about the process. >> think the question is about the establishment of the rubric and how we got to what the ranges are. But if I'm looking at pa- I'm on CT Taylor's score sheet. I'm on page three. I'm at the top. Section A, technical technical proposal evaluation. There's 100 points. Fine. We You guys decided there's a scale of 100 points. That's great. But when if I if I'm me, now I've worked in construction projects, but I've never had to get into this level of minutia.

059I'm sitting in the room and I'm one of the voting members and I say proposed staffing. Implementation plan, staff availability, flexibility to schedule changes. Range of 0 to 20. How did I know to give them a 20? >> It was the discussion among the other members of the committee that were there. They discussed the proposed staffing plan that each of those candidates presented during the interviews and what each of the members of your committee felt was important to them in the decision-making process. >> So they didn't each fill out individual score sheets. They did group think and did one score in total? >> It was a collaborative decision. >> And we're saying the owner's rep was in the room providing advice. >> Yes. As was the design professional. >> Anything else, Vice Chair? >> No.

060>> Other questions from Member Dross? >> So I see that in the proposal union involvement had no scoring at all. >> Correct. >> Okay. And how how much how much value is based off of a difference between the score? So is a six-point score difference a lot, not much, is it within range? Cuz I noticed that it's a 3.2 difference between the top and the second vendor in the best value score, a six-point differential between the qualification score, and then as for the pricing the difference is $1,796, which is incredibly small compared to what it could have been. So, what is the value based off of the gap between these points? >> I I can't explain the difference in the price because they all were asked to price off the same thing. So, they come

061up with that on their own. Um you know, the the I believe the totals were 91 was the lowest and 99 was the highest on the on the 55% criteria. And that is intentionally subjective and the statute allows for that to give you APS the discretion to to pick the firm that you think represents the best value for the project. And those scores are assigned and they're added up and that's, you know, that's the methodology. What what each individual person thought um in their own mind, I can't speak to. I can only speak to the process that was followed. >> All right. What what I mean is that is 2.0 or excuse me, 3.2 points. Is that a lot major difference? Is that supposed to be seen as a minor difference? We see there's a

06220-point gap between number one and number three. Approximately about 24 points. >> talking about the total best value score. Oh, I'm sorry. Now that I understand your question. Um I think that spread is largely driven by the pricing proposals because there was there was almost $2 million difference um between them. And so, when you when you do 45% of the pricing proposal and 55% of >> He's asking between one and two. >> Oh, I thought he said between one and two. >> that there's a gap of 3.2 and there's a gap of 25. Is 3.2 that big of a difference in in when we score this type of project? >> Re- 3.2, I'm sorry. I'm not following you now. >> So, 99.4 to 96.2 with the difference between the best value of C T Taylor

063and Hammond construction. >> That's normal. That's pretty normal. If you go back and look at what we did on Pifer, what those scores were, they're all they're all within a very narrow range. You're you're hairsplitting with these candidates. Any one of these four would have been qualified to do your job. >> Okay. >> Absolutely, any one of them would have been qualified. So, >> Okay. And we're not limited just to the top one. >> We're trying to distinguish those two. That that is a normal range of scoring between candidates. >> Okay. >> In my experience. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. >> Other questions? Dr. Miller? >> Thank you, Chair Montgomery. I am also not a construction expert. But, I I do like myself a rubric. So, when I first saw this

064form, I saw that the only difference on the second page here, appeared to be the third row, the trade union signatory. And so, I thought that it was my initially, I thought there was a third row that affected the best value score here. And then, when you came to the stage, I saw that there was a much larger rubric. And as member Harrison pointed out, there were there's a category proposed staffing, implementation plan staff availability, flexibility to schedule changes, and it appeared to be that category and another category underneath the subcontracting plan. And so, for people who are not construction experts, would either those categories be affected by um something like the additional firm information provided on the second page? >> You mean whether they were signatory to unions and those types of things? Would

065that have impacted it? Is that your question? Yes, I think that's true. That's part of the subjective part. It's not a scored criteria. Um but when we talked to them about their subcontracting plan, which was one of the criteria that was evaluated, your owner's rep asked each one of them what unions they were signatory to and did they self-perform any of the work. And so that information was brought out in the interviews and discussed. And because of because this is construction management, um unless the CM self-performs any of the work, which all four of these could perform self-perform certain trades, but they'd have to bid it like everybody else and be low, um your your uh your trade work would be done by union contractors or non-union contractors, so that's where it would come into

066play. Or if they self-performed it and were the low bidder for that bid package, then theoretically if they're signatory to that union agreement, they would perform it with their with their own union workers for that. And so that's part of the subcontracting plan that each of the candidates presented on. So we had an idea your committee had an idea of how they would approach the project from that standpoint. >> President, thanks. Dr. Waller, are you good? President, thanks. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair Mr. Chair and attorney. So CT Taylor is also uh the firm that's working on the um Middle South Pfeiffer building. Was there any consideration or thought about if CC CT Taylor is also is there going to cause any uh delays with the work on North? >> One of the things that

067was discussed, if my memory serves, was availability >> Yeah. >> of of staff and team. And and was the team that they were presenting at the interviews a team that would be dedicated to >> Exactly. >> the project. So that question was brought up and discussed by your representatives. And the And the team that C.T. Taylor presented in their interview, they represented to your team that they were dedicated to this project if they were selected so that there would not be any any loss of service or any deviation in quality if they were to perform on both projects at the same time. >> Thank you, Mr. President and and attorney. So, what type of overlap are we talking? >> I'd have to go back through and look at their specific staffing proposal. I don't want

068to speak from memory and be incorrect. But my recollection is it was different people. Maybe maybe some overlap later in the project, but not at the same time. So that in their mind at least there would not be any any people having to choose between spending time on Phifer and spending time on North. That's my recollection. >> Mr. President, so uh chair, so I I don't see the resolution. So the recommendation of resolution is for >> So the resolution before us is to accept the rankings of 1 through 4, which would have C.T. Taylor as number 1, Hammett as number 2, Shook as 3, and Penzeca as 4. And the resolution is to authorize the district to start negotiations with the number 1 firm, which is C.T. Taylor. And so And as we continue these

069conversations, I want to get into a little more questions about some of the other information. And hopefully we might get where you're going, President Tyks. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. Yes. >> Any other questions? Member Kelly. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have a question if we're going to continue this conversation. You're holding up a chart that I think all of you have access to it on your computer screen. Is there a hard copy available for me to review? >> I don't >> have access to now. Okay, that's okay. Thank you. >> Sure. Um the other thing I will I guess it's I'm glad that you pointed out that in the review process and the scoring that the union questions were asked. Um we you know, that wasn't very clear in the kind

070of conversations back and forth, which is why I asked for the separate document. Um I guess if we're going to jump into this, are there any more questions on the scorecard itself and so forth before we jump into the union piece of this? Okay. Well, then let's do it. So, in I guess I would be curious to know were there questions asked of the four proposers, bidders, what are we calling them? Um in terms of this work, are there questions that were asked about their workforce and their union labor that aren't on this spreadsheet that Executive Director Folk gave me that we should be aware of? That's my first question. >> Uh the questions that were asked were are you do you self-perform any trade work? And they all said they do to some extent.

071Are you signatory to any unions? That question was asked and the results here are reported. Do you have locations in Akron? Do you have locations in Summit County? And are your subcontractor relationships in Summit County? And those those results are reported here. Previous work for APS and Edge. So, these questions were all direct questions that were asked of the candidate each of the four at the interview. >> So, were there additional questions asked or was it just these? Anybody that was in the room? >> There were many questions that were asked relative to the >> Yeah, come come speak in the mic, please. >> I thought she said her >> Yeah, and let us know who you are and what firm you're with. >> Hi, I'm Barb Shergalis from Westfield Consulting Group. Along with the

072Ruling Company, our firm is the owner's rep for North. We have been owner's reps for many different school districts for projects of this size and and greater. As attorney Harpst um explained to you, this is a very typical process that we see for all other school districts, even in as much as what you might call non-construction people from the district participating and voting for firms. We tell all the folks that we are helping you to shortlist firms, any of which that could do the work successfully. It becomes a question of price, and then it becomes a question of the nuances and with whom you think you can have a an extended uh relationship with. I'm pretty talkative person, and there were lots of other questions asked of these teams, certainly commitments to the specific personnel

073that they brought in, and making sure that we were actually seeing the team. Teams that did not have key personnel present, I questioned that. Other members of the committee did ask questions, including the architects. What we documented here, Mr. Montgomery, was what we thought were some specific questions that aren't always asked in in during an interview setting from districts and we wanted to specifically document those and make sure that they were before you this evening. >> Okay, thank you for that. I mean I think at this point we're okay with the process and how we got to that. I think we want to dig into some of the specifics as it relates to the workforce and the union work. So, my next question's going to be I mean obviously I think we can all say

074number three and number four aren't anywhere close or price is way higher. So, let's just take those out of the equation. So, if we're looking at the chart of the questions that were asked, the only difference between the number one and number two firm is whether or not they're a trade union signatory. It's the only difference in the two that are on here and all in the questions that were asked. So, >> In the questions that we documented to make sure that we put in front of you today. >> what I'm trying to get to and we're going to keep digging. Um and for everybody's edification if they don't know, can someone please explain the difference between a trade union signatory and hiring union labor? I know the answer, but I want the room to

075hear it. >> So, the signa- signatory when we use the term signatory, it means you've actually signed a labor agreement with a trade union. So, you have a binding legal contract that both parties have signed. That's what that means and you're obligated contractually based on the terms of that bargaining agreement. Um you can still hire union labor without being a signatory, but um that doesn't happen as often. But for example, um let's give you an example. If you had a project labor agreement or something like that where you bring that requirement into a specific project, those those folks aren't necessarily signatory to the bargaining agreements, but they're brought into that relationship another way. So, they can still hire Uh those folks. So, that's the difference. >> So, I see that Hammond is a signatory to

076the Carpenters and the Laborers. And CT Taylor's not. Did Does anybody recall Did CT Taylor What did CT Taylor say in terms of hiring union labor if they're not signatory to a union contract? >> Sure. Um in all school projects, um CMR process does a couple of things for owners. One, it's open book pricing. And two, uh every subcontractor is pre-qualified. Um When a uh CMR is signatory to a labor union, that simply means that that area of work is not open to be subcontracted and pricing to come in from any uh non-union contractors. However, um a We typically see about a 60/40 split on all school construction projects regardless of whether a CMR is uh signatory to labor unions or not. That would It's normally probably 40% union labor, 60% non-union labor. And that's

077largely because the state of Ohio granted the exemption for school districts back in 1997 uh under the guise that they were helping uh to control the costs of the work both for their investment and for school districts and investment. But, it does not mean that um union contractors will not be present on a project. As a matter of fact, we see them all the time. And many of the relationships that uh CT Taylor and Hammond have are with both union contractors and non-union contractors. We expect to see both. >> I mean, as I already said, it's it's all fine that the we're allowed to not do that, but that doesn't mean that we might not want to or that we should. Uh just to side step for 1 second, Director Folk is there are you

078able to speak to on Miller, Sialof, and Pfeifer, what is CT Taylor's current use of union labor? >> I would actually have to go back and look at the actual uh subcontractors that they put into ends uh segment one that is on the pre-site and I am more than happy to report that out to you. I just don't have it available, but I can certainly get that to >> Yeah, I would like to to see that if you can send it to the full board. >> I would be absolutely happy to. >> Yeah, President thanks. >> Thank you uh chair. I also chair and and director, I also would like to know that overlay of time where CT Taylor will be as it relates to Miller, Pfeifer, and where they will be in starting with

079North High. We know cost overruns quite often has to do with those uh building processes not taking place in a timely manner and us getting off schedule. And so since the attorney doesn't seem to know have that information, do you have that information as well? >> have that information. I first of all, I'd like to say that CT Taylor reported out in the question that they are currently have 350 pre-qualified uh vendors that could work on this project um for them. They didn't necessarily tell us at that point which were union and which were not. Hammond's response did say that they had 300, but they are also signatory to the two um unions that are listed on the sheet. So therefore, we do know that they have a specific team members that are assigned to

080this Uh uh and it is a very large team. Both of them had well qualified teams. We've worked with individuals from Hammond on both Ellit and the Garfield projects because that's when we were allowed to go ahead and use CMRs for the first time as opposed to general contractors and they obviously were successful projects. We've had CT Taylor actually work with us previously prior to CMRs and they are the performer for Jennings and a number of the schools when it was the six contracted groups that performed when we started in 2003. So we do have a working relationship with both firms that have been positive as we did the CLC work, but I cannot tell you right now President Sykes exactly which are servicing now and I can get that information. The overlap is not

081as extensive as you think because the team members being provided are not doing both works on both projects. So we did not exceed that as a process that wouldn't be accomplished by if they were awarded and negotiated a contract that we it would be a delay in the Miller South project or it would affect the North project. >> Yeah, Madam President. >> President, I'm not thinking anything. I'm just why I'm asking so I can see the facts and I will know what the contract is actually saying. That's what I want to see. >> You You know, I think that's a very good question. I just wanted to add we get this question a lot. Every firm that has was shortlisted, all four of them are doing more than one project. These are very large companies.

082They're doing multiple school projects in this area. We actually asked each one of them. Um, I happen to know a lot of what's going on, um, who's working where, and um, one of the things that I, uh, can add is that, uh, CT Taylor added a second project manager, um, to, uh, the, uh, North project because they're going to run, uh, single project manager just on these two projects. He will be exclusive just to these two, but they added another one they added another project manager for support. Um, what is really key component is the superintendent. It's completely different superintendent. This is a There's CT Taylor's superintendent, um, has just coming off of the North Olmsted project along with, uh, the same project manager. It's one of the more difficult projects, uh, school projects that's

083taken place in Northeast Ohio. So, that was one of the reasons why we felt very comfortable that the people that they had in place were going to be that I'd rather have a project manager working two projects in your district than doing, uh, Miller's South and then sending him over to, uh, the West Side of Cleveland. Um, so, I don't Same thing with, uh, project managers for Hammond and Shook. They're all running multiple projects, but CT Taylor took the initiative to add a second support personnel. >> You said superintendent. I thought Superintendent Oatley's going to get her hard hat out start supervising the project. Uh, real quick before I turn it over to Vice Chair Harrison, uh, Executive Director Folk, one other piece of information I would like to see provided is the list of

084projects and the dollar value that Hammond and CT Taylor have done for the district, say, for the last 5 or 10 years, whatever it is. >> Uh, that whether they were APS or not cuz they did present that in their presentation. >> want to know what they've done for AP. They're both listed as previous APS. I want to know what projects and what dollar values they've done for APS in the >> I will be able to get you that. Thank you. >> Thank you. Vice Chair Harrison. >> Thank you, um, Mr. Chair. Um, CT Taylor added a project manager before we before they were approved. >> No, um, they they presented that as part of their team. As part as when they just because that they they felt that this project was going to be

085that complicated if they were going to use, um, uh, the project manager who was also assigned to Miller South, that they wanted additional support. >> Thank you. One of the things that I look at with best value, um, and, you know, I I don't know a lot about construction, but I do know that time is money. And, um, so when we're looking at these projects, when I look at best value, I look at the ideal that we know this is this is dedicated. I know that they're major construction companies that working on major projects, but we have CT Taylor on a major project, and now we consider putting them on another major project, and we as a district don't have um these are kind of can't miss. We we need these to be done on

086time, and we need to have the confidence. And so when I'm looking at best value, I'm looking at are we sleeping good at night, um, knowing that these projects are moving forward. And so when we look at best value, that's what I was asking the leeway in best value. Um, it is important that we're putting money back into our community. It is important that we are um confident in the workers. I'm not saying that they they can't perform it, but I think best value has to open up a little bit more than a 10-page or a 10-item rubric that has been I don't want to use group think, but it's kind of like we we collaborated on this score. There's other things that go into the best value, and I would like to explore those

087other things that may um have an impact on who we select. Um thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Anyone else? Any other questions? Member Kelly. >> My question is if with there being an overlap in both of these projects, how are we guaranteed that that that fee, once we set an amount, that if there is a delay or something, let's say if something could potentially happen, how are we guaranteed that that that amount that we settle on doesn't increase? Whether it may be for materials or if something happens and or there's a miscalculation with um material fees. >> I I can speak to the legal part of that, and then maybe Barb can speak to the more practical means and methods part of it, cuz it's kind of a two-part scenario. But we will have a

088written agreement, a construction manager-at-risk agreement that is based on the cost of the work plus a guaranteed maximum price. And the guaranteed maximum price is an amount which the price will not go over for the scope of work that's defined in the agreement. So, whatever that is, if it's $72 million, which is the amount we asked them to use for budget purposes, if they sign a contract that says the price will not go over $72 million, if it goes over $72 million, they are at risk for that. >> Are there liquidated damages included for missing the timeline? >> Yes. There there it's Yeah, state law requires LDs on public jobs and I I I forget without looking, but it's based on a schedule and they're definitely in here for this this project. The only way

089the price changes, that guaranteed maximum price can move, but only if there are changes in the work that you all agree to and via a change order process and a negotiated thing. So, you don't ever just get a bill that you don't expect or at least you shouldn't. Um so, that price is locked in contractually for a defined scope of work. And the only way that can change is by an amendment to that agreement. And maybe Bart can speak a little bit to practically how they make sure that that doesn't change and that there are no surprises. >> I I think the one thing that um I wanted to add um each of these guaranteed maximum price amendments include not just the dollar amount, but a schedule and a required completion or duration. So, if

090that's part of the contract language. Now, obviously, if there's, you know, like a major natural disaster, something that's outside of um uh any any of our uh ability to control that at uh no um no fault of the contractor could change the duration. But, the goal and we've not had a project that didn't complete on time. Um one of the things that Westfield prides itself in is uh we we stick we we hit the budget and we hit the schedule. And if we can do better, then that's what we have the teams work towards that. So, um I don't foresee um something occurring like um they just decide that they're too busy and don't work on this project. That just doesn't happen and extends the duration. When these guys get out on the site, everyone

091in these firms, they have a fee amount and they have the uh personnel costs and their goal is to get it done and get it done on a timely basis. And the reason why we keep seeing these same firms again and again and again, the top tier on school projects, is because they're successful and they hit all their marks again and again and again for school districts all across the northern part of Ohio. >> Member Kelly? >> Uh you know, taking on any project, you do want to leave with a level of confidence. Um I spent a decent amount of time at North High School today. This is a very special building. It's a very old building. And I just want to express concern that although we don't want anything bad to happen that will

092delay this project, but we have an entire community that's depending on us making the best decision so that they can get the school that they deserve. >> We couldn't agree with you more. Um we are struggling right now. The team struggled before we came on because they just didn't know where to go with this project, with the budget, and how to make ends meet. We started to set some direction, but this this project needs a construction manager like yesterday. Um we have some very good data relative to costs, but until we have the team that is actually going to have to sign the contract for it, um we're making our best guess, and we want their market information, and we want to get this project moving. And back to Mr. Mr. Gersten's question previously about

093the duration of the project, we know we can get this project done faster if there's any opportunity to relocate the kids. We think we can save about a year. Now, that doesn't mean that we're going to get them in before 2029. What 2029 is is we're going to get the first phase done, and it's going to keep going after that. But if and it's going to it will save you money. Save you probably $750 million just in the CMR costs and phasing. Um so, we're looking at every option, but we desperately need this next team member, the CMR, to come on board so that we can deliver this project for those kids in that community, cuz boy do they deserve it. And we want to do it at the best value, with the best team,

094with the best subcontractors, and we want it to be something that all of Akron Public Schools and all of you are very proud to have been a part of. >> Any other questions from members of the committee or board before we dive into potential next steps? Remember to come >> uh Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't want to prolong my questions, but I will do my due diligence moving forward to attend some of these meetings that's being had so I can understand what this looks like. But I I want to make sure I'm understanding your response. Are you saying that if we can find an alternative for where the students will be housed during that time that work that you're confident that this project will be started and completed within that allotted time frame that

095has been a part of those conversations. Be because if it's if it's solely based on us finding an alternative location for our students, then I do have more questions. But, then I'm and I'm not sure if there's been much conversation uh about that, but I would like to know if if that's what we are if that's what we have to settle on, then >> So, I before I have Bart Cheyne in, I just want to say the conversation was had at the last meeting that it is it is an option worth pursuing to see if there's a place to have a swing space because it would allow for more use and access of the current site and also allow for the project to potentially move faster as Director Folk talked about earlier. But, that would

096come at a cost. And so, this budget is already as tight as tight can be from all the conversations I've had. So, it's not off the table. It is something that everybody's looking into. Um I'm assuming at the next couple of meetings we'll continue to see if that's viable. It's just whether APS doesn't currently have a building that we could put 900 students from North end. Um but, that doesn't mean that we couldn't maybe find something. But again, what's that cost and what's it do the project? So, it's not off the table yet, but I don't think we're there. >> I now would like to advise to Ms. Kelly's question. Please be aware that both firms, Hammond and CT Taylor, truly gave us a plan that was very detailed on how to still be on

097schedule if we had to remain on site. So, that was how you put the plan together, how you segregate these construction site from the actual site where the students and staff would remain. It was very well done by both firms. Um it was just an option that was thrown out by our team to see if it was a possibility. Did they see any type of effect to it? It truly might, as I said, lessen the schedule that is currently proposed, but we're not going to be off schedule at all even if we remain on site. That's the commitment we had from both firms. >> Any other questions? Dr. Miller? >> Since we're on this topic, so I saw item seven phase construction self swing um was one of the categories that the two um companies

098were marked differently. So, is is what you're explaining why they were marked differently? That one of them was going to do it faster by moving them off site. >> We asked We asked uh uh specifically for the teams during their presentations to talk to us about phasing plans. Um this is a very complicated project. It's a very complicated site that is not very forgiving. Um obviously, there's a lot of fill material on that site. There's very steep elevation changes, and once you start to move things around, you have a lot of cost relative to that. So, the question was asked, "Do you have any creative ideas on how we could phase this project? And the team felt that the response from C.T. Taylor um was um had some clever ideas because at the what they

099were presented with was a partial new build as you had previously approved as a board partial new build and a partial renovation of the 70s edition. Uh while keeping students in um the the oldest part of the building. And so, how can some of those things maneuver around as we move kids around and get access? And uh the uh scoring committee felt that the um response from C.T. Taylor gave a little more um uh thought to their phasing plan than than the uh Hamon did. >> Good. Any other questions? Um okay. So, I'm going to talk again for a minute about what I think might be next steps. Um and then uh open it up to the committee as to feedback on that. Uh so, Director Folk, I know the homework we gave so far

100was uh C.T. Taylor's current utilization of union labor on Miller South Pyper. President Sykes asked about C.T.'s proposal for the dual projects and making sure the overlap of work. Uh I asked for a listing of both C.T. Taylor and Hamon on previous APS work and dollar amounts associated with that. I'm going to add an additional item. Uh you mentioned C.T. Taylor said they had 350 vendors that they could work with and Hamon had 300 vendors that they could work with. I don't know what the turnaround time on that would be, but I would like to know the breakdown of union versus non-union of those vendors. Uh with those four homework assignments in place, I don't feel comfortable moving the resolution forward tonight. Um but I am You know I want this project on time. You

101know I'm invested in this, and I'm willing to do the work alongside you, and move this in a fashion that is acceptable both to this committee and the rules committee to then go in front of the full board, but we're on a timeline. Uh I know the goal was to get this to rules on 4/20 and to the full board on 4/27. I don't know if that's feasible at this point. Um I am willing to pull the committee members to call a special meeting of the finance committee once we have answers to those questions. I'm not putting this on a what may come hoping you get me the answers. I want concrete answers on this before we move this forward. So that being said, I don't believe we can get the information by Friday that

102would do anything for rules on Monday, um which means we would not put it on the board agenda for the 27th. And so the next rules committee is on May the 4th with the next board meeting on May the 11th. So I'm proposing a 2-week delay. So I'm going to ask you to chime in on what that may do. I don't know that it'll sway me a whole lot because I think 2 weeks is worth getting this right for an $85 million project. Um So that being said, if we could get the answers in time to have a special meeting either the week of the 20th or the week of the 27th to then be able to propose it to the rules committee on May the 4th, and then uh take it to the potentially

103take it to the full board on the 11th. Now, here's the caveat I'm going to add to that. Depending on those answers is I'm assuming going to dictate what the board feels about opening negotiations with either C.T. Taylor or Hammett. So, the resolution may need we may need to have some conversations and we may need some legal advice on what the implications are if we decide that these scores aren't acceptable to the board because of the answers to those questions. I'm not saying it's going to change anything, but I'm saying it could. So, I just want to lay all the cards on the table that here's where I stand. And with that, I will open it up to members of the committee first to add dispute anything on on what I've laid out there. >>

104Member Harrison? >> I I concur with you, um Mr. Chair. I I think um the when we when we're talking about public funds and we're talking about um you know, we we this building is being built on uh uh an ask for the community. And I think we need to be responsive, receptive to the community. I think we need those questions and I think the best value needs to be inclusive of what's best for the community as a whole. And so, I concur. I I think that the um your timeline is appropriate and and I I concur with you on that. >> Thank you. >> Member Harrison? >> I think the question I have is with the questions that we're asked that we don't have answers to, does the director and the team here believe

105they can provide those answers by Monday for the rules committee? >> We will give it every best effort to get it to you. I would I understand the concern of the committee at this time, but we might be able to get it to you. Just give us the the two days to try, but I want it to be thorough and accurate whatever we give you. >> This president chair rules committee will not take this up on Monday. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Good. Uh questions, comments from other members of the board? Okay. So, with that we will put that timeline. So, um if you can get us an estimate on when you could get knowing that it won't be the 20th, uh get us an estimate of when you could timely get that information

106and then I will pull the committee to schedule a special meeting of the finance committee knowing that pending the answers to those questions, it would potentially go to rules on May the 4th and the full board on May the 11th. And we'll set a special meeting between now and then. >> Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. All right. So, uh on to the next. Uh we have no items referred from other committees. We have no old business and we have a few items on new business, uh but I'm going to uh before we get into that, I'm going to um take the liberty of of providing where I'm at in a head space uh on this and then open it up for conversations. I will say uh since these items for new business are about

107cost reduction, Superintendent Oakley, we're not saving any money on paper today cuz we printed out a lot of things, but that was at my request. Uh so, uh let's kind of settle in. So, the three resolutions that are before us were proposed uh at the board meeting on Monday. Uh the board rejected those resolutions and uh subsequently the resolutions were were referred back to this committee uh for conversation, dialogue, debate, whatever uh we want to call it. So, after that took place, I I went back and did uh some additional due diligence as to what I believe the process to be. Uh and as chair of the Finance Committee, that's the process I would like to describe to the committee, and then we can have conversations about what that means, and then uh and as

108we do that, I want to have kind of a conversation about all kinds of things at once. And then once we're through that conversation, decide what if any actions we would take on the three resolutions that are before us. So, that being said, uh everybody is aware, obviously, of the $11 million worth of budget reductions that are before the board. Uh I It is a I and I've said this before, and I think we are in a unique position with the timing of it right now, because this $11 million in reductions is effective in the next fiscal year. So, fiscal year 2027, which begins on July 1st. So, as we look at the role of the board and our role in approving budgetary items, I want to put it out there, remind folks, introduce it

109to folks, however that may be, uh whether it's the public or the board or whomever, uh kind of how this plays out and kind of how we got here. So, the board, as it relates to the approval of an operating budget, which it will also be called appropriations, are governed under board policy 6231 and 6232. Those two policies basically or essentially state that the board is to to presented and approve an operating budget, which is the appropriations, and for this board that happens in two phases. The board will be presented from the administration a temporary appropriations budget in June. Uh as we look at fiscal year 2027, Treasurer Bowers and I have already had conversations. That first draft of a temporary authorization will come to this committee at our May meeting as we need to

110present it to the full board for passage in June. So, that temporary authorization essentially gets us through the first 3 months of the school year. So, we try to make sure we have approved operating budget and appropriations for July, August, and September. Then in September, the administration will come back to this committee and come back to the full board for a permanent final appropriation for the fiscal year. At that point, this board the Well, the committee first and then the board will vote to adopt that budget, those appropriations, which at that point in time would be us voting on reducing that budget and that appropriation by $11 million, which the superintendent and treasurer have been charged with achieving. So, that to me is is kind of the path with that $11 million and how it

111relates to the fiscal year and operating budget it's going to impact starting July 1. As we have worked through this, we all know that that process takes time. We've been having conversations about types of reductions, what areas are going to be impacted since since we three new of us joined the board in January. And I jokingly say the superintendent's on version like 50 of these reductions, but I'm probably not joking at this point anymore because in the various conversations we've had, the superintendent has made changes based on board input, based on staff input, and we've kind of run down into what the recommendations are. So, in those two policies, it states that we approve a budget and appropriations, which I outlined, and we also approve a financial forecast or what they call a budget plan.

112And this board approved, we have to submit that financial forecast to the state twice a year. We They bumped the timeline up. It's February, which we just did recently, and August. >> Yes. >> So, the second version goes in August. The version that this board approved in February for fiscal year 2027 was reflective of a an $11 million reduction in expenditures in that forecast. And in in the packet of papers, there is one that says financial clarification. Uh that is in here. And I we're not going to kind of pull it up and belabor it. The only two points I want to show is this This slide deck shows the October 25 forecast and the and the February 26 forecast and the difference. And the important part to look at is on the right-hand side

113under projected cash balance, you can see uh on the October 25 versus the October or the February 26, the amount of projected cash in 2028 is larger in the forecast for February because we reduced expenditures by $11 million, and that's what allowed us to extend our risk of financial caution by a year. And so, that was reflective in this forecast. The treasurer and I have discussed when we when they present the appropriation and operating budget to this committee and to this board for fiscal year 27 that those appropriation requests are to match to the forecast. And so at that point in time, we have already reduced the administration's ability to spend that $11 million because the appropriation does not exist. So when we talk about guaranteeing that the $11 million will not be spent, the

114timing for that is in the approval of the fiscal year 27 budget in June. It isn't about individual contracts, individual expenditures. Those kind of things happen every board meeting that we have, every committee meeting that we go through when business affairs and the superintendent and the treasurer bring us contracts that are over thresholds prescribed in board policy, whether it's 10,000 or 25,000 or whatever it is. I know we're drafting a new policy. But the the superintendent has to come to this board to ask for authorization to spend the money to enter into a contract. Whatever vendor they choose has to follow our procurement policy and whether they got to get bids or publicly advertise or it's within a limit, that's all prescribed in policy, too. So that's our control over what the expenditures are for

115and what the administration is spending it on. To get into the weeds of the operations of the district to say you're going to cut you know the as an example, I forget if it was a round million dollars, but there were textbooks we weren't going to purchase or there were Chromebooks we weren't going to purchase and it had a dollar amount to it. To ratify that in a resolution to say you can't buy Chromebooks because that's what you presented, in my opinion, is not in the board's authority or wheelhouse. We present the superintendent with a budget and she has to operate within that budget. So, that's the to me the operational piece of what the superintendent has proposed. These three resolutions are the reduction in force, which means we're eliminating positions. That is a board

116responsibility. It is dictated in policy 3131. But, I would also say that in 3131, and I know we're revising all kinds of policies and even the three that I'm referencing all need updating, but they are the policies that we have in place. But, in 3131, it says that the board shall make the reductions to follow the recommendation of the superintendent. And the superintendent has made recommendations to us after thorough thought. And with that piece of it, there are other documents that have been handed out. I know we have talked about wanting to know in writing what's included in the $11 million, and I know there's questions about how decisions were made and conclusions were made, and I know there are still more questions that members of the board want answered, and I'm here to support

117that. But, I did ask the superintendent to put together two additional documents. The first one says "Fiscal Year 27 Reductions" on it. The front page is a summary of the $11 million of the categories that she is proposing to not spend money on in 2027 to be able to meet that $11 million reduction that we are going to impose in the budget. One of them is the reduction in force, which require requires board action. The other ones would just be funds that aren't spent because the funds aren't available in the appropriation. But, for information of the board, I did have her include all of the bullet points that she expects to not spend in 2027 because the funds are not going to be available. So, all of the uh initial recommendations as they stand today

118are in this document. The other document is the one that has a lot of words on the front. And that one is essentially a timeline of efforts that the superintendent made to come to the conclusion that she came to that the 17 positions in the three resolutions are the ones that her and her team feel that they can do without in 2027. And so, that's in there for informational purposes for the board as well. None of this is to be said that questions shouldn't be answered, everything that we need to get through and answers board board members want uh to to ask to be able to make their own individual decision is perfectly fine, but if we're talking about our role as board members as policy makers, supervisors of the superintendent and the treasurer, and

119approvers of the budget. This is what is in our purview per the policies that I've read. If I have missed a policy or misread a policy, I'm all ears, but the policies the board policies are how we're supposed to function. And as I read them, this is my interpretation. And so, with that, I will ask um the superintendent real quick if you want to say anything about the timeline and the and the um the uh subject of the 11 million, and then I will open it up uh to questions and dialogue from members of the committee and the board. Madam Superintendent. >> Thank you, Chair Montgomery. So, um just to reiterate and to maybe provide a little additional information. Um I know some of you had questioned um that the most recent times that I

120presented to the board, it was around just the reduction in force. And so, this list everything as member I'm sorry, Chair Montgomery stated. And the timeline is an overview. It does not include every meeting. I can certainly provide you with another document that um a re-updated one that will give you even more committee meetings um times that I've met with principals. I did capture some of that. I also in the live document, if you like, if it says survey, there's actually a link to the survey. So, I can send this to you live as well. So, um anything to help make your decision-making process um more productive. I know it's not easy. It is very challenging. And again, I would just like to bring attention to the fact that this is not due to anything

121that the board or the administration has done. This is due to the way our public schools are funded. And just to remind everyone that we will be having a community forum on Tuesday, and we encourage everyone to attend to learn more about school funding and what we can do about it. >> Thank you, Mr. Superintendent. Vice Chair Harrison? >> I have no questions, Mr. >> Okay. Member Jaros? >> Sure. Well, first of all, I'd like to thank the chair for giving us the opportunity to discuss uh this matter. I know at the beginning of this process, my understanding was that the board sets the goal of what needs to be reduced, right? The $11 million. And then the superintendent and her team come up with the best way to fulfill that goal. Um my thoughts

122were that it would come back to the board to see what the plan was and then to approve that specific plan. And when I looked at some of the items, actually I do like this document because this is trying to tell us what we're what the superintendent is planning for us to vote on, what they're planning and for us to not vote on. But when I do look at that same policy, the one that was the 6232, those first three paragraphs kind of operate the same way Chair Montgomery mentioned, that we set the budget, the superintendent operates within that budget. But I know with the Ohio Revised Code, anytime the budget is amended, anytime it changes, whether we change the the uh budget to go higher or lower, if we're transferring from one fund to

123the next, it typically requires board approval, which is why I thought that any sort of change to the budget, whether it is an operational efficiency, whether it's we're reducing a position entirely, or if someone's not in that position, position exists, the position no longer exists, that the board approves or validates that decision. But then the fourth item here just talks about that when there is actual revenues are less than the estimated revenues, including available equity or the funds that's already in the account, the superintendent shall present to the board a recommended amendment to the general appropriations act, which we're talking about what the budget will look like, that the board would then have to approve that amendment. So that was my perspective coming into that meeting, where ironically, the majority of the reductions I support

124and I approve and want to give that validation to the administration that as a team we're going to move forward with these 11 million dollars. When hearing some of the comments about these reductions as they are it's like a initial plan of what operation efficiency what we want to do, but if we don't approve of them, can they change between now and July 1st? Can they change between now and October 1st? So it's just trying to make sure that when we're working with taxpayer dollars, when we say that we're going to do something, I believe that it will happen, but with that board authority, with that board approval of that of that change. So, that's where I was taken back with only seeing three items cuz even the one item that is being transferred, the

125career and technical education specialist, it's a transfer of the Perkins grant. I think that's a brilliant way of keeping this position, just getting it off of the general fund, but every time we transfer one fund to the next, we have board approval for. So, I was surprised to see that wasn't proposed at the same time as the rest of the 11 million dollars. Though that's kind of the thought process I had while approaching it from a procedural standpoint, just wanting to make sure that if this is something the board has to approve or should be approving, that we are doing our due diligence to make sure that we put our approval on it. >> Yeah. >> So, I think I can answer a couple of those um and then if the superintendent wants to add

126to that. So, the one example that you gave in terms of the transfer to the other grant, as long as we've already budgeted funds in that grant for salaries, there's nothing we need to do. She can transfer a person from one funding source to another, or it goes on the regular agenda consent agenda when we have those list of transfers, but budgetarily, now if you wanted to transfer it to a grant that didn't have enough budget, uh then yes, they would have to come to us for an appropriation amendment. And so, in the first part of your comments, you're absolutely right. If and Treasurer Bowers and I had this conversation, if the 11 million dollars we were cutting were happening right now in this state in this school fiscal year, I would have required a

127board resolution to reduce appropriations by 11 million dollars. Because if we don't do that, they still have the statutory authority to spend the money. Our only control is to reduce that budget so it can't be spent. And that's what the proposal is here. When we approve this the fiscal year 2017 budget, it will be 11 million dollars lower. And so, that's the control mechanism. As it relates to some of the other proposal items, again, if we've appropriated $10 million to supplies and she says in here I'm not going to spend $100,000 in supplies, then that's fine. But if she wants to say, "Okay, instead of this $100,000 in supplies for item X, I want to spend it on item Y." And it's the same amount, there's nothing for us to do cuz the budget's there.

128So, what she spends in supplies is not us, but appropriating $10 million for supplies is us. So, I mean, I think your interpretation of what you said is is accurate in terms of where we are. I just think there are some nuances that we're all learning in this journey together as a as it relates to what goes before the full board or what doesn't. But in terms of budget reduction appropriations, that's the thing that happens either annually or if something changes in the amount of money we're authorizing to spend. I know superintendents have anything to add to that. >> Well said, thank you. Especially when you were member drills when you were saying the transfer, I think you've seen that before where we'll say from this fund to this fund, we would do we could

129do that as well because we've done it before. >> So, would that particular item come to the board as an agenda item when it happens in the beginning of the fiscal year? >> Yes, when we change funds, we do bring it to the board. And also with Perkins because it is a grant for CTE, we also check with them to make sure that it's an allowable expenditure. >> So, is my understanding that it's sort of a this is the plan that at some point next year, we're going to be making this appropriation as as opposed to doing it now. >> We will the the initial temporary appropriation will come to this committee in May and it will go to the full board in June. We will work as a committee with the treasurer that the

130temporary appropriation at least ties to the forecast as it stands right now, which has the 11 million reduction in it. And then the final preparation would happen in September. And if we find between June and September that the appropriations need to change a little bit more, we have a second vote to say, "Okay, here's your proposal. We either need to cut more than 11 cuz we already put it in the temporary or we're good with where we are and we can move forward." So, we will have two opportunities in June and September to vote on the overall appropriations. >> Okay. >> Vice Chair Harrison. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, thank you for the background. And I I want to give a little bit of background that um I want to make it a

131little clearer here. Um as we were having a retreat, I believe it was sometime in February, um when we originally started going over these reductions, Superintendent is presenting the reductions. And it it seemed like there was some questions, a lot of questions. Member Sykes, or President Sykes at that time, asked us to write down our questions or let um write down our questions or concerns. Um I took the opportunity to write down my question and my concern. I think it was more of a concern than a question, but um and um not only my concern, but offer a partial solution to what what I had a hard time with. Um and that was resolved in my mind. Okay, we what I asked for I didn't like a lot of other stuff, but what I asked

132for was palatable at this point. Um My concern was and my understanding was that we were voting on $11 million. When it was brought up in January that we shouldn't be voting on $11 million, I I had an issue with it then and I have an issue with it now and I'll continue to have an issue with it. And it's different if we're talking about Chromebooks like we're talking about. It's different if we're talking about $1,000 worth of supplies. When we're talking about issues that affect student outcomes, things that directly impact students, not not supplies, not Chromebooks, we're talking about services that are forward-facing the students. If you say to me, "These are our reductions and you're going to vote on these reductions." I'm going to trust that that's going to happen. Okay. But I

133may not be okay with if in the middle of year one, we decide, "Well, this was an administrative change, so we're going to take this money and move this money here." Because my yes is conditional on what I was showed. It And I'm okay with that. So, when we're talking about these policies, there's another policy that that has been left out, 62-10. Uh 62-10, 91-10, and revised code 5705-38 C. And And And And none of that really matters right now for me, but what matters is I want to vote on what you present to me. Because what is in this $11 million here means that I can be okay with this and I was there. Didn't like it, but I'm there. But I want to vote on $11 million. If If If If we have

134to cut some paper, why are Why are we not presenting the cuts? We know what they are and we know they won't change. >> I If I could ask a follow-up to that. And what And when you say, "We know they won't change." What Can you elaborate on that a little bit? Cuz to me voting on the $11 million is where they go in the appropriation line items, whether it's supplies or operations or contract services. And then there are the expenditures that fall under there. So, when you say cut paper, are we saying we're going to We're voting Is that what you say cut paper? The What example did you just give? I'm sorry. >> I I I was using examples that you guys were using supplies and Chromebooks. >> So, but but So, but

135if if it's if it's So, the the With the appropriation, she couldn't move a million from supplies to contract services without coming to the board. That's an appropriation adjustment. But what I'm What I'm trying to ask is within supplies, do you care if she spends on a hundred a hundred thousand dollars on paper versus a hundred thousand dollars on floor cleaner? That to me is what in her proposal, if we're going to say I'm going to vote on everything in her proposal, that's to me what that feels like. That we're we're saying you told us paper in April, you can't change it to floor cleaning supplies in July. >> I I think you're simplifying it, but I think if if you had the appropriations up there that you show that was shown to the public,

136I I think that again that it We're not I'm not talking about paper. I I mean, if you need paper, you need paper. If you need books, you need books. I mean, we're a school district. Some stuff we're not going to get about. But I don't want to pay for what we want and beg for what we need. So, if you say this is the $11 million, and that was my understanding. That's my understanding. This is $11 million. I'm there. Okay. It took me a while to get there. But if if something in that 9.4 million dollars changes, and I'm not talking about paper, I'm talking about something that directly impacts student services. Okay. Then I'm not there. And so I think it's If we never had to vote on it, then why was we

137shown it in the first place? Why why are we engaged in all this conversation? Let's just do it. >> All right. So I've been saying since January that we've gone too far in some of reviewing some of these items. So I agree with that part of it. I don't think we should be reviewing it, but it was introduced to us in January and the conversation started and it and it continued. But I think I've said a couple times that this is outside of our scope, but I'm only one person and so I I get where you're at and so I I think um potentially if there is a miss understanding of what items in here outside of the RIFs should be under the board's approval that falls into our policy. I like I haven't found

138one. I'm going to go back and look at those policies you referenced, but in terms of operation, I mean there are a few of them that are going to be unfilled positions, but they're not being eliminated. So again, our authority is the budget. It's not the individual expenditures until she brings us a contract to spend funds and then we can either approve it or deny it. >> And and and I appreciate your thoughts. I appreciate your perspective and as you said as you we talked about it in January. You're one vote and I'm one vote. I disagree with you. Okay. That I mean and so that's that's where we are. Okay. You know, President Sykes asked us to to write it out. I wrote mine out. Okay. We discussed it. There were some adjustments. I'm

139there on the $11 million. I believe that that's what we were voting on. Um when it was said, we shouldn't get involved in that. I expressed my disagreement with you. I expressed my disagreement with member Sykes, uh President Sykes. Um so, I I think you know, the policies are all 30 years old. So, uh I think the revised code takes precedent over the policies now at this point, but uh that's where I am and >> So, let me ask a follow-up question to that. If a resolution was proposed that calls for the reduction of expenditures of $11 million even like by cost category, would that be palatable or are you looking to approve a line item list of expenditures for $11 million? >> I'm looking to approve what she showed us. That's that's that's what

140I'm looking >> item list of expenditures. >> W- Whatever it is what you showed us in the spreadsheet. I didn't I just got this today, so I didn't take a look at this today. You You showed us the last I mean, there was many versions of it, but the last one you showed us, that's what I was looking at. Okay, that's what, 3 weeks ago, 4 weeks ago? >> Yeah, that's what this >> That's what this represents. >> Okay. >> In one place. >> Okay. >> Other questions? Dr. Miller? >> Thank you, Chair Montgomery. Um few things and I'll chunk it. I have a whole separate set of things, but first I want to say I appreciate your email. I found it incredibly helpful to receive the pieces of what we're going to talk about

141to have a framework for the evening was very helpful. Um I do want to say I do disagree with you on one interpretation of policy 3131. Um I don't think it says the board shall. It says the board retains the authority in accordance with and so I don't think that the policy is requiring the board to rubber stamp any recommendation that comes to us. I do think that we retain the authority um to review the recommendations. So that's one thing I do disagree with but one thing that I want some clarification on as I hear especially member Harrison with this $11 million package. When I heard your explanation of we already approved it. And so my I guess my question is if we already approved it, what difference would a resolution make? And so then

142the next question is if it's already authorized, if we don't approve the resolutions and I think the resolutions were about 1.6 of the $11 million. It was a It was a small portion. So does administration just need to find those elsewhere when it's not reduced? >> The reduction in force items require a vote of the board. So if we don't vote the for the reductions in force, yes, the administration would need to find the 1.6 million somewhere else. In response to your comment about 3131, I was talking about the first line in paragraph three that says in making any such reductions the board will suspend in accordance with the recommendation of the superintendent who shall within the teaching field effective give preference to first to teachers and it goes through the right. So I It's

143will and not shall so I got the one word wrong but so that's what I was looking at but yes, you you are correct if the these resolutions don't pass and and I want to get through the conversation before I even We may not do anything with them tonight. I'm I'm just trying to have an open dialogue that we're all getting our thoughts and and feelings on the on the table what we're going to do. But yes, that would be the case. If we don't pass them, she was still charged with eliminating $11 million. So, they would have to find 11 1.6 from somewhere else. >> Okay. Thank Thank you for that clarification. So, um that is um a relief because I I do understand and I am aware that our district does need to

144find $11 million and we are committed to $11 million. So, that $11 million will happen um regardless of what happened on Monday, 2 days ago. So, that's helpful. The next thing I want to uh bring up is the fund source in the cost category because as member Harrison brought up, if you know, we have the the spreadsheet of things. Um and when we approved the appropriations, um they were seven categories of general funds. We have a lot of categories, a lot more categories than some districts. We have seven categories of general fund. But when we received this version or the other spreadsheet version, there's four categories here and these four categories I I don't know where these align to those seven because it looks like two are salaries and wages and then the other two

145are each of the other four or five categories. So, um I seeing where this aligns to appropriations is is very >> So, just a point of clarification, the we have we've approved the reduction in the forecast submitted to the state. We have not yet approved the appropriations for the budget because that hasn't happened yet. That'll happen in June uh for the appropriations piece of it. To your the second part of that about the categories, so in our financial system, we have So, the the way our policy is written, the temporary budget gets approved the general fund in total, and then all other funds just rolled up into one number. And then when the permanent appropriation budget comes through, that's when those seven cost categories come into play. There's one for salary, one for benefits, one

146for contract services, one for supplies. The superintendent I did talk today about breaking this down into those categories, and we can get that uh out to the board. The four categories that are on the summary page of this were really just to talk about what areas the superintendent was looking at reductions in. So, the first one was to separate out the reduction in force, which the board needs to vote on if they so choose. The second one was additional personnel costs that are only due to unfilled positions or realignments or optimizations. And then the last two were operational versus programmatic. And the programmatic may be to Reverend Harrison's point more the area of what might be impacting in the classroom because they're program like but we can definitely take those and put them into the

147cost category. So, that that is a very good point, but the the final appropriation that will come to the board in September will have the entire operating budget broken out into those categories. And the reductions reflected in here can be itemized into those seven categories as a dollar amount. Any follow up? >> I I do, and I think the follow up from what you said, if we're adding what category each of these items actually comes from. Um and as this is a school, and people are just, you know, sending their children to school, but it's a very large school. Um it's not like a lot of other districts. I think um knowing if something has no student impact or direct student impact, um or or maybe somewhere in between, moderate student impact. I think knowing

148that would be um helpful. >> Any other questions before I circle back to member Jurors, member Kelly? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um we I'm sure we are thinking we all have the uh fiscal year 27 reductions in front of us. If we can reference page two, the recommended administrators uh general funds reductions non-reduction in force. >> Superintendent Ollie. >> Yeah. Superintendent Ollie, could you please walk me through what each of these these items and there's there's six of them. >> Mhm. >> Can you we explain what the non-reduction in force means as it relates to each of these items? >> Sure. Would you like me to start with the administrative specialist budget? >> Yes, please. >> Okay. So, we have um if you I think the easiest way to think about this is if

149you uh compare this category to subs. Um these are retired administrators who come back and they do uh different jobs for us. For the most part, they sub. So, if we have an administrator that's going to be out ill for more than 1 day, for several days, uh they can request at the building level for some support and will contact an admin a retired administrator. We call them administrative specialist and they'll cover Um but we also use them we have one currently that works with that me on EMIS data and she also supports our assistant superintendent when we're looking at uh student data especially enrollment. She um one of the biggest thing she did for us this year that we celebrated was our graduation rate. And I don't want to take us too far down

150but she actually one of the things that we're penalized on is our um our denominator. So if there's students that know are no longer with us but we didn't explain why then we're penalized. So she actually calls families reaches out and tries to find where these students are that we say are no longer on our roll and through the um ODE guidelines ODEW guidelines we can withdraw them from our roll and so that's one of the things that she does. We also have one that supports us with our grant writing. Um so again they do they're not full-time employees they do not receive benefits and they're only paid on the days that they work. >> May I? >> Yeah, please. >> So when we say this these positions that total $500,000 these are as needed

151or per diem positions. >> Correct and this is the reduction. So the budget was just over uh 900,000 and so we reduced it by 500,000. >> So we are reducing it to 500,000 which means that we're not bringing in these employees >> Correct. >> if we did the total amount in salary, we would pay out is $500,000. >> Well, if we were we have a 3-year trend of just around 900,000. The way we've been using them, the total budget was about 900,000. >> Okay, thank you. Could we move to the next item? >> Yes. >> one career and technical education specialist. >> Yes, so this is in our CCAA department and it was a position that was in our general fund that reports to uh Marcy Ebright that supports us with our uh college and

152career academies in the with curriculum. So, I want to say this particular position is a specialist for English language arts through the college and career academy lens. >> So, the reduction amount here is $161,336. >> Correct. That will come out of the general fund and transfer into the Perkins grant. >> So, we're not this money, this dollar amount we see >> Mhm. >> this is no longer being pulled out of the general fund. >> Starting next year. >> Correct. >> Okay, thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Could we move to the uh third item, which is the two special education coordinators? >> So, these are currently two vacant positions. Uh we have two special ed coordinators. One uh was formally over what we call our child study department or employees. That those are our school

153psychologists. And so, this position was not um replaced when um he retired. And the other is a special ed coordinator that was providing support um from an administrator perspective to our schools. >> So, beneath that it says vacant positions. >> Correct. >> So, how we're factoring this $363,244 in a non-reduction in force. What this means is that we're not going to fill these two positions. >> Correct. >> So, we're saving $363,200 $300, excuse me, and $63. >> Yes. >> $100,000. >> Yes, you're I get it. >> $244. >> Correct. >> Okay, so please excuse me. >> That's okay. >> Can we move to the fourth item? >> Yes, so our we have one director of student services. Um this position we have interviewed. It has not been filled as of yet. This is the position

154that our current assistant superintendent held. And so, we did go through the interview process. We tentatively have a candidate identified. And if able to offer the position, this is what the savings would be uh due to uh compensation adjustment. >> So, this is not a position that's currently filled. >> Correct. >> If this position was filled, >> we would save $30,000. >> Okay. Can we move to the 1 2 3 4 the fifth item, please? >> Yes. So, one director technology uh services. The savings here is that the position used to be an executive director. And uh upon the uh resignation of our former executive director, I changed the position to a director. That's what it was previously. Um and to the other gentleman having it two gentlemen ago. That's correct. It was a director

155position. And so by returning it to a director position and adjusting the compensation, it is a savings of the $11,620. >> So this does this position exist within our district? >> Yes, it does. But instead of the person being an executive director, his title is director. And that's is a savings of $11,620. >> Which is the difference in both positions if I'm understanding what you're saying. >> Yes. >> The last one, could you please review the assistant superintendent position? >> So yes, this is our current assistant superintendent. Uh there was a change in title. Our former superintendent had the title of assistant superintendent and chief academic officer. Uh So that is a change. There is a change in compensation. And there is also a change in the benefit package, which would total a reduction of

156$55,000. >> So we know that this this position exists, but there's been change in the dollar amount that is being compensated for that position. >> Correct. Correct. In the amount of $55,000. >> Uh thank you for answering those questions. So that this brings me to my point and question. The non-reduction in force that was presented to us let me slow down before I say that. I do want people that's watching virtually the individuals that are here now see that we are working collectively through this. And I am I'm thankful that we were challenged to do the work. Because this is us doing the work. I feel I I I applaud you for leading this. I do think that the information you've provided it does help. Um but we've said that this the the budget reductions

157have been uh shared with us almost 50 different ways. But it's been the same job positions presented 50 different ways. And when I made a comment that I didn't feel confident making a decision to support this it's because I've been giving no given provided no other options as far as the reductions besides the same ones 50 different ways. Each of these reductions that have been that's being recommended are a direct And these are positions that have direct contact with our most vulnerable students. And this packet here screams those students that will be impacted by this are students with IEPs, our students with that need that that one-on-one time, our most vulnerable population that this district has will be deeply impacted by this. So, my question is, outside of these proposed reductions that have the most

158body, were there other options when we decided on how and what positions we were going to reduce? >> Uh yes, and I definitely do not have a problem sitting with you so that you can see the original reductions because um they're not here. We as mem- as member Harrison stated, the board was given an opportunity to ask for adjustments, and that's what when I received feedback, I made those adjustments. And so, I can sit with you and go through all of the original positions, and you will see that there are many that are missing from here. Um and what and I will just add and I because I believe I heard member um or chair Montgomery say, you know, in one in some sense I was kicking the can because if you look under programming,

159You'll see the largest amount is our textbook adoption. That's over $3 million. The category itself is just over, you know, 300, you know, $3 million. because the state has made a new um criteria that they're going to identify what they consider to be effective curriculum. If if I'm using the correct terminology, high-quality instructional materials, we decided to put it on hold so that the state could come up with their list first. So, we didn't purchase first, and then whatever we purchased wasn't on the list. So, by waiting, I was able to redirect these this 300 million and take over $300 million of other reductions off the list. So, that's what's missing from here, 300 million other reductions. And again, I certainly don't mind going through them. In this document where it speaks about students with

160IEPs, it speaks to putting paraprofessionals into the classroom where students with um IEPs are, because they will help support them directly. Um And I again, what I really have I need to say is our the work we're doing is because we're not funded correctly. I would never want to advocate to lose a staff member. So, that's the other lens that was used here was that these reductions based on the staffing that we have in the openings, the vacancies that we have would empower the administration to offer different positions so that they still remain part of the APS family. So, that was for this year with this $11 million dollars we are looking to achieve that. I cannot say when we go to do our surgical removal of $27 million will have the same opportunity, but

161at this point we do. And so to have the although I know that our paraprofessionals that are in the libraries that is great work that they're doing but it doesn't it's not required by law. So, when your budget starts to shrink I believe as stewards we have to look at what's also mandated. And where it's mandated we should feel. And so by moving them, adjusting them to classroom positions, it allows us to meet the state mandate of having paraprofessionals with students that have IEPs versus possibly working in a different environment where they're not where it's not legal that they have to be have a by their um it's it's mandated that our students with IEPs have services. And by moving our paraprofessionals, that will allow us to help meet more needs in the classroom. And

162that's what that what you were quoting. That's what that was referring to. >> Thank you, Superintendent Atley. >> No, thank you. >> You're welcome. I guess, you know what um to sum up my concern these um recommended reductions all of them minus our non-reduction in force items, which totals $1,694,723. Um even when I look at the the recommended program general fund reductions all of these again is a specific population, a specific group of children that will be impacted deeply and potentially for the rest of their lives if we move forward with what is being recommended. I know the seriousness of the lack of funding and why there's urgency to this matter. But my primary concern is the disproportionate impact that these cuts will have on our most vulnerable students. Again, I'm I know why we

163have to do this. This has to be done. But to not acknowledge that most of these reductions target a again a specific group of students in this district. I would like I mean I would like to see or at least hope at some point that we're not going to continue to be presented reductions that are not taking away some of the most valuable resources that this district has to offer its students. Because again, the program recommended reductions extended testing time to reduce for testing coordinators since already a part of the supplemental contract extracurricular optimization, summer programming 10th grade PSAT NMSQT preliminary SAT National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Testing. I mean these are these are resources that our children need. >> Okay, I just want to make sure we're and I'm going to just leave it at

164this cuz I I just want to make sure that we understand what it's saying and that that's not what it's exactly saying. Right now for our testing we looked at the trend on how much we were spending on testing and we had over put too much into the budget. And so, this is bringing it allowing us to reallocate those move the funds because we had over put too much into the budget. And so, it was just correct sizing the budget. It's not that they cannot take the assessments. Most definitely our students will take their assessments. Um and there's funds in there equivalent to the number of students that over at least the last 3 years who took the assessments. So, that our students who opt to take the assessments will still have the opportunity. I

165just don't want you to think they're not going to have the opportunity. We As a district, we wouldn't do that. >> May I? >> Please. >> How I'm reading this >> Mhm. Yeah, that's why >> I I'm aware that this isn't taking the service away. >> Mhm. >> But, we're saving 300 not 300, but almost uh 3.4 million dollars on optimizing these programs. >> Mhm. >> So, how are we saving money on them? And how is that efficient and effective for the students that truly rely on these services? So, the this is a dollar amount that we're looking at subtotal proposed is a savings. I'm I I I guess I probably should ask if and we don't have to do it now. >> Yeah. >> If this could be explained to me. >> Yeah. Okay.

166>> Because when I look at this, this is saying that we're going to save 3. almost 3.4 mil or 3.3 million, 3.4 million on program reductions for again things that provide additional assistance to students that need them. >> But keep in mind 3.1 of that's textbooks that again the superintendent addressed as pushing into next year. So 3.1 of that 3.4 is purely just pushing textbooks off one year. >> Yeah. >> So >> Correct. >> in that particular example. >> Yeah. >> Um and if I may, I I I I do want to comment that we're I'm very glad and I hope everybody notices that we're having this in a very open and transparent way. Um and I know member Kelly and for the others that the timeline and summary is a new document and the

167list of reductions while most of them are recurring items. Um and we're not going to take action on the three reductions in force today. Um I I would like for uh to reiterate what President Sykes said on Monday about getting unanswered questions asked. Um I I want to look at um having those conversations and everybody getting so I I'm going to recommend that we don't move on the three today so everybody can ask whatever final questions they want to ask. We need to look and see uh what resolutions come back, whether we act on those eventually or don't. Um what sort of a resolution comes in. As I said at the May meeting the a regular May meeting, we'll take a first look at appropriations and and budget for where these items fit in. And

168then ultimately, it'll be whether we just approve a budget with line items or if the board collectively comes back and says we're going to approve these detailed line items. I don't know that we're all on the same page with that, so I think kind of hashing that out right now maybe isn't the best way to finish that. So I'm happy to continue on it with line of question, but I just want to kind of throw that out there to take some context of we all have a little bit more homework to do. But I wanted to have this first hash at that conversation. Are you good with that, member Kelly? >> Yes, thank you. >> Thank you. I know member Jaros has a follow-up, but President Sykes, I wanted to give you an opportunity if

169you had any questions before I give member Jaros another another quick shot. Member Jaros. >> Okay. So I think as we move forward, my main thoughts were just making sure that as the board we're practicing the right governance. So when we see $11 million of reductions, my hope is that there's a clear easy to see, easy to follow plan. And the district has provided that plan. They have the way in which they're going to accomplish these reductions. What I'm hearing when we're not voting on them is that it's basically a soft plan. That this is what we think we're going to do, we can change it, we may or may not do it. And so I'm looking more for that, well, what is the plan that we're going to do to meet the $11 million

170of reductions? And I know that the RIFs were they never went through the committee first, they just went on the agenda, which caused confusion to me as to why are we only doing a portion and not the entire process. And so when we look at, well, what would we be willing to vote on or approve? If this document was submitted to the agenda, I have a feeling there would be a high chance of it to having success. Okay, I think this is the plan that we're going to move forward. And then when we were budgeting, as as Chair Montgomery mentioned, if at that time the administration goes, "Well, we did say we wanted to do this under operations, but we have a better way of going about it for the budget and wants to change

171it." I am sure the board will be willing to to change it. But, I'm looking at for now, the plan moving forward is what? And if we take a look at what we've proposed, I think it's a good plan. There are some things that I know there's challenges on those three items, maybe looking deeper into, but overall, there is a clear plan moving forward, and I'd be happy to support the plan moving forward, but the entire plan, not just a fraction. That's the main point I was looking at. I thank you, Chair. >> President Sykes. >> Thank you, member. Uh thank you, Chair Montgomery. I can answer the question why the RIF went on the agenda without coming through uh the committee is because uh after we met several times and the superintendent asked, "How

172did you feel about it?" And the response to the superintendent was, "We don't know what you're going to ask us to vote on." So, she submitted the RIFs. That's why they came on the to see. And so, clearly at the last meeting, the response was, "We don't want to vote on this." So, because we are a policy body, that's how we express our opinions, we vote. And so, when you voted on it, you voted not to move on it. So, after that, as the president, I you know, I like to use committees, so I forwarded to the finance committee so that you can tell the superintendent and the community just what it is you want to vote on. Because as you recognized it and as member Kelly said, all of these affect our students in

173serious ways. But, the question is, what are the cuts that the superintendent can represent and present to us that will not affect our children in significant ways. This is a school system. So, every position is important, otherwise we would not have those positions. So, it this is a very difficult situation that we're in, and we're in this situation because we have not received fair funding allocations that we were requested that we had agreed upon, the legislators had agreed upon, that we would receive. Even as Mr. Molnar speaks on a weekly basis, when we look at rules, we are constantly having funds passed through this district that should stop here with us, but because legislators, and you know I have all kinds of respect for legislators, but they have decided that that money is not going

174to stop in Akron Public Schools. And so, that money goes comes to and and it keeps going. Not to even mention transportation and what it means to this district and how much money we have to send out to individuals that do not come to Akron Public Schools. That we have our children, 15,000 plus, that's walking to school, but under transportation the state of Ohio, we pay to bus or we reimburse their parents to take them to a school other than Akron Public Schools, and that comes out of our budget. So, this is not an easy process, and there is not one one reduction that will be represented in any budget, in any reduction, that will not hurt our children. Let's be clear on that. But, if you have some ideas on what those reductions should

175do should be, bring them forward. That's why we're here. Bring them forward. Let the superintendent know if not this, then what? If not these, then who? But now we must act. Let me just ask the treasurer to remind us why we must act. What is the timeline that we're dealing on what we have to say to the auditor and where we can find ourselves if we don't. >> So, we have submitted our forecast or February forecast with the 11 million in cuts in there. I would need to resubmit by the end of June to update that if we don't get these passed by then. Um if I take the 11 million dollars out, we would be in fiscal precaution right now and I'd be working with ODEW uh consultants to begin to figure out how

176we move ourselves out of that process. >> So, I just want to I'll get to you in a second, Dr. Minor. I just kind of want to add to what member Jaros and President Kelly said in terms of a package and what's presented and we are a governing body and as of today it sounds like we still have differing opinions as to what the approach is going forward and at some point in time we're going to have to come to some sort of a consensus as to what moves forward. What resolution uh is out there. I still firmly believe that we approve the budget and we move on. If some members believe that we need to approve approve line items and details, show me the policy that says that or and/or present a resolution that

177says that. We are a seven-member body that will have to be deliberative and I we've all said from the get-go we're having this open dialogue. It's not like anybody has any animosity against anybody because of their opinion. We're all saying what we feel and at the end of the day we will make decisions that will affect this district. And to add on to what President Sykes said, there is a timeline, there is a way in which we have to do this, but I will remind everybody and the superintendent said it just a little bit ago, this $11 million reduction still causes us to deficit spend $27 million in fiscal year 27. We have the cash reserves for it today, but if you look at the financial forecast for 2030, we're looking at being in a

178cash deficit of $112 million. And so we can operate that. So if you think these 17 positions and this $11 million is hard and we're going to sit and deliberate this for 4 months, wait till we have to cut another 27 million in the next couple months and 100 million in the next 3 years. So I'm not saying that to be disparaging, I'm just saying we have a lot of tough decisions, we were all elected to make these decisions and we have to figure out how to do it in a way in which we all have our thoughts heard, but also act in a way in which that we achieve and meet our deadlines because I guarantee you you do not want the Ohio the auditor of state or Ohio Department of Education coming in

179to make the cuts for us because they're just going to come in with a sledgehammer when something needs a scalpel. So I just want to have everybody brace for that. We've got a lot of work to do and I value everybody's opinion and that's why I wanted to have all of this out in the table. We'll continue to do that. Um I will before I kind of finish this up and do a timeline. I know Dr. Molnar, you have another point. >> Yes, thank you. I have a question based on something Treasurer Bowers said, but acknowledging this is hopefully the last thing I say, I'm going to just try to summarize. Um I I hear member Kelly about the direct student impact that all of these riffs have. Yes, I hear President Sykes that everything

180we do is for our kids, but when parents drop their kids off in a building, a lot of times they think of every everyone that's in that building is interacting with their student. They don't realize we had student success before this, what happens in this building until they come here for something like student success committee. And so, one thing that I wonder um is what's what non-student-facing positions were considered? What are the options that were considered? Um you know, member Harrison mentioned that there and I think uh Superintendent Atley, you mentioned that there were were a whole lot of other things considered and he mentioned one and and it pulled off. That's why the data is so helpful because when I look at something, I want to know, was this a database decision or was

181this Harrison's idea? I We might not agree with that. So, let us know what What did you do Where did that come from and what else was considered? Um because as um as President Sykes said, you know, if we have other ideas, present them. I'm very curious, especially of administrative positions, because I don't see the non-student-facing positions on here beyond um this page. Sorry. Just got a new one today. Here. So, when Treasurer Bowers said, "If we do not act by June, we might have to submit something else." But, what I heard this meeting start out with tonight was Member Montgomery saying, Chair Montgomery saying, "We already acted." And so, I don't unders- I'm I'm lost again. If we already acted, what do we need to act on by June? And if we just continue

182these recommended administrator non-reductions in force, would we need to act by June? >> Treasurer Bowers. So, we acted when we approved the forecast at February 28th by the 20th deadline. Um if we don't stand by that those numbers that I put in there. Now, they've moved that way up on us. That's why we had to do it so early. It used to be in May. Now, it's February. So, we had to act quick right after this board, you know, assembled pretty much. >> Yeah. >> Um so, but if we don't stand on those numbers, then I have to I have to change that. I have to tell the state that we've we've had some changes in our ideas on the budget, and now we're going to change that. And he mentioned the appropriations resolution that's

183also due by the end of June, the temporary. That will match the forecast next year. It's a new requirement by ODNW, but we're going to we're going to do that anyway. So, we um so, those two things will match then. Um so, they will both have to be modified if we don't if we don't get these through now, we're going to have to modify it to match what we're actually going to do. Does that answer your question? >> No. So, we we're being asked to do 1.6 in staff reduction in forces, but we already have 1.1 in administrator non-reduction in forces that we're not voting on. So, if we don't vote on the 1.6 staff, and that 1.6 was added to the 1.1 to be a 2.7 administrator non-reduction in force, would we need to

184act in June? >> So, yes is the short answer. We have to act in June to officially reduce the 11 million in appropriations. We've We've reduced it in the forecast. So, now we have to match it to the appropriation. If we do that, the superintendent no longer has authority to spend that $11 million. Regardless of any of this $11 million plan, because the next step is once we had if we reduce the appropriation, and we do nothing with this, she still has the authority to she has to reduce spending by $11 million, whether it's one of these items or some other item. We would have no we have no say over that, but if we have reduced the appropriation, she has no choice but to cut spending. She cannot, if we do not vote, do

185a reduction in force of the 1.6 million, because the board did not take action for her to do that. So, the 9.3 million that is non-reduction in force, if we cut the budget, she has to do it, whether it's any of these line items or not. So, it just depends on the order in which things happen, will depend on how we go. The forecast, as updated in February, to the treasurer's point, has the 11 million. If we change nothing, I would expect and propose to the committee and the board that the appropriation budget match that forecast. And then from there, there's nothing else left to do, and she's got to reduce spending. If we don't do the reduction in force, like your to your question earlier, she would have to come up with that 1.7

186million somewhere else, because we've reduced her budget by 11 million. I don't know if that helps. So, there's not right now there's nothing to do other than approve the budget reduction in June, officially. >> May May I also remind the board that we actually reacted and submitted our five-year plan even before this year. You may remember after the election when And former superintendent brought in the five-year plan, there was no reductions, and we held it up to say, "We just passed We just passed up We just passed a a ballot issue. And we have to show that we are willing to show that we will reduce our our spending." And so we held it up for 2 weeks, even though we was going "Oh, the state is going to They they're going to look unkindly

187on this because we did not send in our five-year projection in a timely fashion." And what we did at that time, we said the administration has to show that we understand that we are spending our reserves at a rate faster than we should, and if we are if we were not using reserve funds now, we would be working in a deficit. And so we have to continually show that we are understanding that we have to cut. And so that's how we came up with the $11 million, remember? Right after the election last year last year. We said we're going to do 11 million this year, we're going to do 27 million this year. We submitted that plan to the state. And if we don't do this, then the state is going to hold us in

188hold us responsible for not living up to what we said we were going to do. And that's how you get in pre-warning fiscal warnings because we are not doing what we said we were going to do because we supposedly recognize that we are spending our reserves at a higher rate than what we should. And if we don't stop the spending, we are running this district at a deficit, which we cannot do. We cannot do that. So if we don't show these reductions, we will be running this district in a deficit, and that's when the state has the right to come in and take over this district. So, we started long before this year with this 5-year plan. >> Yeah. And in terms of delaying and those kind of things, uh in terms of a path

189forward, and I think Gerst is twitching over here, but I'm giving this 10 more minutes. I am shutting this down at 9:30. I Let me Let me just say that. Um but, I'm going to get my last part in first. Um in terms of a timeline, uh I want to continue this, but I please implore everybody to ask the questions of the superintendent, the treasurer, myself, whomever you need to get to ask, and work with one another, obviously not breaking sunshine laws, but to have conversations about what's out there. Um I'm not going to be uh overzealous and say we're going to meet some sort of timeline on this, but we do have a hard timeline. Um so, I will say that uh we already talked about scheduling a special meeting for the CMR for

190North. Uh I will commit to putting this on that agenda as well. We will talk about this at every finance committee meeting until we get a resolution. Uh I will schedule whatever special meetings of the finance committee I need to until we get a resolution. We will make that June deadline one way or another. Uh so, we will put it on the agenda. We'll continue to have these conversations. Um we'll we'll work through the necessary things. We will do it all in public and open. Everything's going to be transparent about this. Um these have all been great questions. Again, we're all good colleagues. We're all doing this together. We're all just trying to make sure we know all the answers, and we will do that. And so, I'm going to give you the final question

191unless I need to rebut. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Gerst. >> Thank thank you, Chair Montgomery. Again, I we all know the gravity of the situation. We know what the challenges we are facing and we know we have to come up with the 11 million. What we're looking at is if the board is only approving 1.6, then apparently we've already made 9.4 million. Without any board action is what is currently being stated. If we do not have to If only we have to vote on the RIFs, we've already made 9.4. According to the current plan. But all I'm suggesting is is that to validate the direction we want to go, that we can tell the state that we are making 11 million dollars of reductions, where maybe the predecessor said they would do it and

192didn't do it. All we're saying is this is the plan that was laid out in front of the board on how we as a district are going to reduce by 11 million dollars. If this was on the agenda, I'm I would be happy to support the plan and then we would not have to delay any further. That's Those are my remarks. >> Superintendent, Treasurer, any last thoughts? >> I thought Dr. Molnar had a good question. Um that Nathan just kind of sort of addressed there. The the difference between the RIFs and the other cuts will remain in the budget, right? No matter what, as far as I'm as I don't understanding this. >> Which will satisfy the state. >> Yeah. We will still we'll be closer to the precaution mark, but not at it. If

193we leave that nine and a half million or whatever the number is, the difference. Uh so this So that is a good point she brought up and um So we we do we need to act on this remaining amount to get to the goal that was given the Superintendent in some fashion. Um But that is a good point. I just wanted to clarify that. >> So, all right. I'm calling it. The uh next official meeting of this committee will be on Wednesday, May the 20th at 6:30 in this board room, but will be subject to call at a special meeting at a date to be determined, but will be publicly announced. Uh if there is nothing else, can I get a motion to adjourn? >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Aye.

194>> Any opposed? Good night.