001Happy new year. Welcome everybody. Um the purpose of this meeting is to conduct the business of the Gettysburg Area School District. Board of directors meetings and committee meetings are open to the public but are not public meetings. All school district residents who wish to make public comment should sign in prior to the start of the meeting and request to speak during citizens participation. School district residents wishing to speak to the board shall do so only during the citizen participation section of the meeting. Public comment is welcome and all issues will be referred to the appropriate board committee or administrator. Comments will be summarized in the official board minutes which will be available by contacting the business office. Please take a moment to silence your cell phones and other electronic devices. All right. Um for roll
002call we have um Kathleen is excused this evening and um Dave and Ryan are present on the phone. Prior to this meeting we held an executive sess session to discuss this discuss excuse me a student issue. Please rise for the pledge. I believe we don't have any citizens participation this evening. So that brings us to routine approvals. looking to take these items together. 5.1 the agenda. 5.2 the regular board meeting minutes from December 2nd. 5.3 the meeting minutes from the reorganization meeting. 5.4 the meeting minutes from December 15th. 5.5 the student expulsion waiver agreement. And 5.6 the human resources recommendations. Do I have a motion for 5.1 to 5.6? >> So moved. Second. >> All right. Uh, Tim, >> yes. >> Donna, yes. Al, >> yes. >> Justine, >> yes. >> Dave, >> yes. >>
003Mike, >> yes. >> Ryan, >> he's on mute. >> Oh, Ryan, you can unmute yourself to vote. Thank you. >> Yes. >> Yeah, we can. Thank you. And I vote yes. All right. Moving on to items for board action. I'm going to um separate these two this evening. The first item on board action is 6.1 team room scope of project. Um I want to take a second just to mention um for the board and also for the public um that this was a specific request from one of one of our board members. Um and we're currently working through the process of getting things onto our agenda. So typically we have kind of a process where we're going through having something in a committee that then is brought as an information item and then after an
004information item um it gets turned into an action item. So this particular agenda item did not go on to our board perhaps in the traditional route it normally gets there. Um just giving some context to it but it is a topic that you know people are interested in discussing. So, um, with that in mind, um, and and kind of firming up our procedures that we have to put items onto this agenda, um, if there is somebody who would like to make a motion for this, um, I'm opening the floor for that. I'll make a motion to remove the two alternative items, uh, which is the viewing platform and the roof access path. >> That's not the motion. >> Okay, I heard a motion. >> Second. Okay, I hear a second. So, now we're open for
005discussion on the team room scope of project. um that the board eliminate the two alternates on the scope of the project. So discussion is open. >> Um first of all, this needs to go to information item first before it goes to board action. So it can't go to um straight to a board action item. The citizens need to be able to come in and comment before any of that is done. Any other items for discussion on this topic? Wasn't this when this was approved? I don't remember the date. Maybe I do know the date. >> October 6th. >> October 6. Thank you. Um at that point, there was the information for the public to come and comment. And that was when there were three plans, three ways that they were planning to set it up.
006Um, and I believe administration is was opposed to what's being requested to be removed. So, it did allow for public comment at that point. But Tim, are you saying because it's coming back again as an action that it has to go through information a second time? Yeah, because you're changing the scope of the project and participation is >> I think I think historically and for a little bit of context, this this whole project I think went through seven or eight committee meetings, including two on-site visits. And when we voted on it back in October, um it came to the board, I guess, for two or three different options. and and as with anything else, the recommendation, just like with tax increases or whatever, the administration had made a recommendation on on what their preferences were,
007but the board at the time voted unanimously, I think, minus one member, uh, to move forward with the current one. So, I would I would agree with Tim in the sense that if if we want to revisit that and and change the the design and what was voted on that the appropriate way would would be go back to committee, discuss the pros and cons and and and see how the the full committee and full board feel and if there's an appetite for for changing that. Um that that would be my preference and and recommendation. It just seems kind of kind of rushed. Um I would agree with Tim. So, I guess Tim or Dave, what was discussed at finance and facilities? >> Well, I mean, I'll let Dave speak on it, but >> originally um
008because I think it's in in practical alternatives for the team room and training center. The main focus is for team room and training center, not for spectator viewership. and the location. If you went out in that field and stood there where that building's going to be, you're going to be hardressed once you're two rows back on that viewing platform to see anything. So, to me, it is a waste of taxpayer money. >> But in saying that, you're getting a lot of >> to go on to the agenda. You have a lot of people that come to these games if you've ever been to a football game and stand on the mezzamine. There's a fence there and there three, five, six rows deep. People stand in the mezzamine because there are no seats available. This gives
009those people a place to view the game from a place. And at the cost of this, you could not put seats in that stadium for that. And to put seats in the stadium, you'd have to destroy the visitor side. put a smaller section and it add new to the home side at cost of million, 2 million, whatever it may be for have anybody to have any more viewing spaces at that stadium. >> And I did have a question because I was part of the the initial site visit. The what was approved back in October isn't constructing the seats and the the seating area on top of that. It's just including in the the architectural design and the build the ability to put structure on that roof. Am I correct, Josh? We're not we're not we're
010just making the plan if down the road if you want to expand seating there like Northern Lebanon and other other school districts have done. We're just preparing for that. Correct. >> No, the design the structural design is to accommodate occupancy of what was it 275 peopleish. >> Yeah, >> it was around 250 to 300 people standing room only. Uh there the design does not reflect the ability to install bleachers up there. There was a thought at one time that we may put bleachers on top of there when it was located inside the track, but when it got moved back to the approved location outside the track in the hill, it's just standing room only. >> Josh, did I hear you correctly though? It could accommodate up to a couple hundred people. Yeah, based upon the
011so the code analysis, right, that requires the designer to put an occupancy load um from a life safety standpoint uh on the drawings and he's going to double check the number. Um but I believe it was around 250 to 300 people. Um be pretty tight to get that many people up there, but legally and safely you can put that many people up there. >> Yeah. I I I I would just say just uh a quick remark in that uh we did uh address this at several commit finance and facilities meetings. We did do an on-site visit. We did discuss uh pros and cons a lot. So, so I think minimally if we are looking to make a major change to the alter alternates here that we would send it back to committee and then bring
012this back through uh our normal process through information and then and so on. But it I mean this went through a a pretty long vetting process and um I would hate to think that you know our previous board wasted you know several of our meetings in this agenda item uh where we spoke ad nauseium uh about this back and forth and and you know Dave in the end may agree or disagree and again it's okay if we agree to disagree on this uh but but I think minimally because it did go through a strong vetting process went through information went through a board formal vote. Uh, and now we're looking at real quickly just to take those two alternates away. I think it at least deserves some more discussion back in committee before returning back.
013My personal opinion >> and I believe if um if I'm not correct, Josh, the whole project was about three years in the making. Am I correct? >> Yeah, that's close. >> So, it wasn't a rational decision. And it was >> Yeah, I went through >> I want to I mean this is this is available to all the board members, but um in in kind of our la most recent batch of people asking questions, I I asked Josh to answer some of those questions about the timeline and the breakdown of of where we were um starting from the beginning of the team room project actions towards that most recent board vote that that took place. So, um, at least on this list, there's things that go all the way back to 2023. So, um, take a
014look at that, um, for for more information on your own as well, um, if you didn't get a chance to review it yet. But at this point, um, there are lots of discussion items that have been brought up. Um, most of them about process. Um, I'm looking to see if there's any other discussion items on 6.1. um before we we move to vote on uh the motion on the table or anything else that is happening with that >> and you can always vote to amend the motion uh amend the motion to I I sort of was just drafting an idea like to table it until there's a committee recommendation >> okay >> or something like that >> is that something that can happen so it has been seconded as this current motion >> but right
015so there's a motion and a second and and then you can vote to either table the motion or amend of the motion. Either way, as long as we have a a first and a second on those motions on the motion, it's fine to move forward. But >> I I I believe that you have to vote on the motion if it has a second. >> Well, we're talking to the >> Not necessarily. No, you can vote to table or you can vote to amend the motion. Um, so it's up and and or you could vote it down or we could just go through and vote on it and vote it down and then it gives it full freedom to sort of take the process in the committee or not, however it moves forward. >> Okay. >>
016I'd like to make an amendment to the motion to take this back to committee and then bring it back as an information item and or to bring it back as whatever committee decides first. So, I'm hearing a motion to bring it back to committee. >> A motion to amend. Yeah. >> Amend and bring it back to the committee. >> So, we would need a second on that and then we need a vote on the amendment to that specific motion before we vote on the substance. >> Cool. >> Okay. So, is there a second to >> second? >> Okay. C >> do we have discussion on that amendment? >> You can vote. Yep. You can absolutely. And I feel I hear that Dave might have some comment, >> but there So we've we have a motion
017and a second to amend the motion. And so now we're going to talk about all the things about amending the motion. Josh, if this does uh get approved to be uh tabled and back to committee, from a timeline perspective, does that hurt us any any way in in the way of any other obligations or or getting the project done or do we miss any deadlines of any sort? >> Yes. Uh short answer. Um so I give you a quick update. So, uh, we our bids are expired at this point, simply stated. Now, excuse me. I have reached out to the successful low biders and ask them to hold their price for an additional 90 days. Um, I've heard back from um, one bidder that they'll hold their price for no additional cost. I'm waiting back
018from the other two biders. Um, so jury is still out on whether there's going to be a price increase, which obviously that'd be a whole another conversation, right? Um, and timing wise, like obviously we're not going to make our originally original completion date, which was targeted for basically June 1st, you know, timeline. Um, we did rebid this job so we could start construction um in the fall. or early winter or at least the process, right? Um because we didn't get favorable pricing because we had construction going over the summer months which a lot of these contractors are really busy with much larger projects. I think that's why we didn't get the uh participation bid participation originally. So most likely we would be back into a rebid scenario and we would have to um evaluate probably
019the best time to rebid it and I would say it probably be a repeat to rebid it towards the end of the summer just realistically looking at it. >> I have an additional question Josh. Um what what has prevented us I think there was some permitting issues like from the we had the original middle school project that those permits weren't closed out. has that's what is is that what has prevented us from getting started so far? And my part two to that question is is if if the board does vote to remove the structural capability to have spectators on the roof and remove the path, is that going to are we going to incur additional engineering cost to have those engineering documents changed? So your the answer to your second question, we will not incur
020any additional design cost to back out the add alternate one and two um because we've already uh received bid pricing um for the alternate design or just the base bid without those two alternates. Um, back to your first question, the the hold up in getting the team room permitted, building permit issued, um, they won't allow us to even apply for the building permit until we close out the middle school. Um, it's a NPDES permit. It's a storm water management uh permit that has not been closed out due to some asbuilt um drawings uh asbuilt survey and associated drawing and operation maintenance manual for all the storm water management uh facilities, the ponds, the piping, you name it. Um that was constructed in 2014. Um it's basically just a regulatory uh closeout process that um was
021not completed post construction. So Cumberland Township won't allow us to again apply for permit for the team room until we close out the NPDES permit um as they see fit uh to meet all the requirements. Um they're not asking for anything that shouldn't have been done. um it just didn't happen. So, >> and are we close to getting that part done? >> Yes, we are one letter away and one letter, one filing away from getting that done and then we can apply for the building permit which then they have 30 days to review the plans to issue building permit or come back with comments. um and then we would have to resubmit with any um revisions. So that's why I asked for a 90-day extension of the low bid number. >> So having this discussion
022of removing these items really hasn't had an effect on the bids because we're still waiting for permits. Is am I understanding that correct? No, I Well, we're moving. We still have We have bids, >> Right. We have bids to construct the the uh alternates or construct it without the alternates. >> Right. >> The the uh the bids unless they ask for an increase because the bids have expired, which is again, it's just a it's a we'll call it a regulatory requirement for a publicly bid uh project. Um those numbers if they change I don't see that they would change a lot. Um we just haven't been able to move forward to even submit the drawings for the team room for permit because Cumberland Township said we're not even going to entertain that until you close
023out this other permit associated with the middle school. >> Yeah. >> Does that answer your question? >> It does. Okay. >> Yep. >> And I do have another question on that. That's been how many years now? 11 14. >> Yeah. 11 >> 11 years and and they never called us to say hey by the way >> well there was I've been here for 4 and 1/2 years and this it's been active but slow obviously for the time frame that I've been here um there was some discussion regarding ownership of the storm water structures mainly within the or improvements which would be you know manholes, piping um within the uh street lef fever street. Um typically the um public entity, you know, we would build to their specifications and then they own everything within the street,
024right? um within the from what I understand within the last 5 to 8 years um they only now take responsibility for the street and basically the frame of any inlets or manholes. We uh or the developer as they looked at us as uh we made the improvements. we still own all the improvements subsurface. Um, and there was some discussion or disagreement about um, why that was. Um, and we pushed back on that, but the original operation maintenance agreement for the structures and all the improvements um, from what I understand had us listed as maintaining ownership and basically responsibility in perpetuity, right? to make any um corrections or maintain them basically forever. Um so that's really what the holdup was. Um and then we did have some survey work that was not done to basically document
025the um construction of those facilities to make sure that it met what was designed. That wasn't done either, but that's both of those items are taken care of at this point and we need to get a letter a letter signed as long as they agree with the language, file it at the courthouse and then we can close permanent out. >> So, I'm going to bring it back to what um what our board action is on the table right now. Um there was a motion to amend 6.1 and a second uh which opens the floor to discuss the amendment. >> Right. So the next vote would be on just whether to amend and then the vote after that >> on that. Okay. >> The substance of the amendment. But we have to decide like does the
026board agree to amend >> what? Go ahead Dave. >> I'm still confused. Um there's a motion on the table. So, how does another motion be allowed to come up and vote on that and not not either kill the first motion that was seconded or move it forward? >> The motion there was a motion on the table and now there's a motion there is a motion to amend the motion and so there is going to be a >> it has to be by the original person to amend it. No. Which is why we're going to vote if it were by the original motioner and the original seconder, there would not need to be a vote on whether to amend the motion. But because we're amending the motion by two different people, there has to be a
027vote by the board on whether to just simply amend the motion. And then there's a subsequent vote on the substance of the motion. Does that answer your question, Dave? Thu of Robert's rules that our solicitor is explaining. Yeah, I mean I kind of disagree that you need to vote on a motion. If it dies, it dies and then you can make a second motion. >> And that's absolut that's absolutely another option, but we now have an amended motion. So, we could vote down the amended motion and vote down the original motion, but it is possible to >> Yeah, there are two ways that you could do it. Um, our we have two board members who have uh motioned to amend and a second. So, we're going to we're going to vote on that. So, this
028is voting on the >> Voting to amend the motion. I lost my pin. That's >> right. There's one of those two. >> Oh, thanks. >> Okay. >> Are we clear on what we're voting on? >> No. Not. Yes, I'm not. >> So, so this vote is if you vote yes, then you are voting for the board to amend the mo amend the item on the table. So we would be changing the language of what I want. No, we would be we would be voting whether or not you agree that we would like to change what 6.1 is. Then there's going to be a second vote on whether 6.1. So right now 6.1 reads a certain way. >> Okay. The motion on the table is amending how 6.1 reads as a motion. So if you vote
029yes, you're just you're not voting on the substance of the motion. You're just saying I agree to amend the motion. >> Yes, we can change it is what you're what you're saying. >> And what the motion is being changed from is action tonight. The motion is now suggesting that there be action that goes back to the committee, a committee recommendation, putting on as an information item, and then action in the more traditional Gettysburg procedure. But the first motion, yes, the first yes would be whether or no would be on the motion itself. And then the second one would be whether to do what the motion is saying. >> It's >> so a vote of yes eventually gets it back to taking it to committee. Okay. I just need to >> Yeah. >> Yep. So this
030vote if you vote yes on this, you're saying yes, we can change 6.1's language right now. If you vote no, then you say I would like to keep 6.1's language as is on the paper. Okay, here it goes. >> Alice, can I just ask a quick question? Can you hear me? >> You may. >> Um, if we're inclined to keep the viewing platform, uh, then we could right now vote to not table it and then vote against the motion to amend 6.1. Is is that accurate? >> Good point. >> Can you can you repeat that one more time, Ryan, so we can process it, please? >> Sure. If we're inclined to keep the viewing platform right now, then we could vote not to amend or sorry, vote not to table. So, vote no on this
031next round and then vote no on the amendment to 6.1 tonight. >> Yes. >> Okay. Now, again, >> yes, that's correct, Ryan, if you heard. >> Great. Thank you. >> Sure. Um I I'll take an attempt at clarifying because of course everyone's decision is their own. Um so the motion on the table right now is to change is is to allow for a change in wording of 6.1. The intention there, it seems, was so that we could then bring this back to the committee to keep talking about whether we would like to eliminate those alternates or change what is on the table here. So, if that is a way that you would like to go, then you could agree to vote to amend this and then we could talk about bringing it back to the
032committee. If like Ryan's stating, long-term you see you you see yourself thinking that the you would rather keep the platform and the roof access path, not eliminate anything, then there's no need to amend it. You could just vote no to the 6.1 as written and no to an amendment because that would say we want to keep it the way it is. >> But there's already a motion. >> You would have to vote no for both things. Yeah. Correct. Yeah. Um, it kind of depends on what passes. Does that answer those questions and clarify? >> I mean, argue arguably, I mean, it comes down to this. If the people sitting here today, whether they're on the phone or here in person, if they want to bring it back to committee to vote and bring it back
033to the committee where the committee makes a recommendation and there's new action on it, then you would vote to amend and then you would vote yes to that amendment. If you see the vote here on on on the paper on the agenda and you say I don't want to revisit it, it shouldn't go back to the committee. I want to vote on it now. I want to remove the scope or I don't want to remove the scope. Then we don't need an amendment and we can make the decision here as to whether the folks here in phone or in person want to just how whether they're going to weigh in or change the vote from October 6th. So right now what's on the agenda is changing the vote from October 6th. If everyone here wants
034to just vote on whether they believe the vote from October 6th should remain or removed, then we don't need to amend the motion. Um, but because it's come to the agenda sort of in the outer normal process, it was well, let's bring it back to the agenda process. So, I think those are I'm trying to explain it in another way hopefully. Yep. Again, two different ways of approaching it. Um, but right now we do we do have an amendment on the table. Yes, Dave. >> Well, I make it easy. I just amend my motion from the start. >> And then take it back to just state that I'll amend my personal mo motion >> to what? >> Just take it back to committee. >> Well, is it if I think if that's the emotion norm
035already on the table, right? That's the motion. I keep saying emotion. I'll I'll I'll determinate the original motion and just I'll just make the mo make the motion to take it back to committee for the next meeting. >> It's um helpful to know to know the intention because I think that's clearer. Um but we do have the amendment on the table. So if that's something you'd like to do >> if he withdraws his a motion then my motion's on my table. >> Your motion? Yeah. Who who made it? You made the second, right? So if Dave if Dave if Mr. sites makes his amendment to remove and table and you agree because you were the original seconder to the original motion then we can all move forward and it will go back because the motion
036will be removed because and then we can vote to do that as a board. Is that what you're suggesting right Dave? >> Yeah. I just wanted to go back to committee at least. >> Yes. So as long as you agree with it going back to committee you because you seconded the original motion that Dave made. If you agree, then there's a vote and it goes back to the committee as normal and we're all and it's normal. >> That's fine with me. >> So, so Justine, at this point, Dave's proposing that he's he's asking to amend his motion to send it back to committee and that would require you to agree with that since you seconded the original motion. I guess I >> sure but I don't know like it went to committee it went through
037the process in October now it came back for whatever reason it came back that I don't know I'm unclear of as well because the subcommittees we see the the minutes and that's I have asked questions about more clarification there as Well, but if that is what is agreed upon and that's what Dave wants to do and I seconded it, I sure we take it back to committee. >> Okay. Thank you. Do we we have to vote on Well, I mean, I understand the confusion. I think ultimately, again, I I stated this upfront a while back at this point, but um you know, we're still working through the way that that process goes and this one was faster and less of the steps that that help clarify that. So, in the future, the the goal is
038uh to follow that every step of the way. And hopefully people's questions will be answered along the way. So, we have a motion to amend and a second and now we're voting on sending it back to the >> whether to send it back to the committee. Yeah, cuz that's what Dave has amended to and you've agreed as a second. So, what's whether to go back to the committee for discussion? >> Okay. Is everyone clear on what we're voting on? I think. >> Great. >> Al, >> a yes vote is to send it back to committee for >> Okay. Uh, yes, >> Justine. >> Sorry. Sorry. Can I just I have one clarifying question. Will you say send it back to committee? This is the um the motion uh that the board eliminate two of the
039alternatives, the viewing platform and the move access path in the scope of the project. We're sending that back to the committee >> in lie of action. It is go that that particular 6.1 is going to the committee in lie of action. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Dave, >> who? >> Dave you. Yes. >> Thank you, Mike. >> Yes, >> Ryan. >> Yes, >> Tim. >> Yes, >> Donna. >> Yes. >> And I vote yes. >> Okay. Thank you all for sticking with us on the Robert's rule process. Uh, moving. I got to go. >> Thanks, Dave. Um, moving on to >> Did you say yes or no? >> I said yes. >> Yep. Yeah. Uh, moving on to item 6.2 for board action. This is the high school gym athletic sound system replacement.
040Um the board would be approving the request to replace that sound system and we've had uh this on as an information item. Can I get a motion for 6.2, please? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Thank you. All right. Voting Justine. Oh, I'm sorry. Any questions? My apologies. Any questions before we vote? >> Thanks. Okay, Justine. Yes, Dave. Oh, just kidding. >> Mike, >> yes. >> Ryan, >> yes. >> Tim, >> yes. >> Donna, yes. Al, >> yes. >> And I vote yes. All right. Information items 7.1, our administration building renovations. Back on for an information item. anything to present or ask about? >> I was just going to say this is verbatim uh what was on previously uh so I can run through it again if you'd like or we just discuss it openly.
041Um you may just go through it quickly >> or is everybody on the >> I think you should just to give everybody a refresher. >> Okay. So, um we have three different options as as we uh laid out for the admin HVAC uh project. Um option one uh was to move the IT room to the uh attic space and obviously do a full uh HVAC renovation throughout the building. Um again, that was the original original scope and the board had approved us to design up to $4.6 $6 million total project cost for that scope. Um we designed um high level design and got an estimate back for that scope and it came in at 6.8 million significantly higher obviously. So at that point we took a step back looked at different uh options. Um none
042of which got us back down to the 4.6 million. Um but uh just looking forward really 5 10 15 20 years even uh as far as what um we may need as an administration um excuse me space in the administration building. We came up with uh option two um which is to uh relocate or not utilize the third level attic space for the IT uh IT room. actually expand the footprint uh beyond this exterior wall over here and create uh another boardroom which will be of similar size here um as as we're currently using uh renovate this space into a consolidated IT space um with the um main server room uh which that gets that up out of the basement which is one of the main objectives so we don't have any um concerns with
043water moisture things of that nature. Um we would have uh some conference room and office space in here as well. And then uh obviously we would we would complete the HVAC scope um which is the the main component of the project throughout the building. Um option three um would be to uh design and bid and add alternate um to add a second level to the first floor boardroom addition that I just mentioned. Um, and that would take the total project cost to uh an estimated uh 7.5 million. Um, so again, option one was 6.8. Uh, option two was uh 6.5, 6.475, so call it 6.5. Um, and then option three was 7.5. Uh, administrative recommendation is to do option two. Um and then also bid uh option three which would be just the addition of
044the second floor to the first floor boardroom addition. That's it. >> Thank you for the review. Any questions from the board? Was there a cost breakdown of what just the HVAC and electrical costs was >> there? Yes, there is. U I don't have those numbers handy. Um but yeah, there was a basically a spreadsheet that was put together by the designer. Um but the the overall numbers that we that I just spoke to that was um all of our construction contingency, design contingency, money to move, furniture, commissioning, permitting, inspection. I mean on down the line that's one um one figure for the entire project. But yes, there was an itemized uh list provided by the uh the designer, but again, I don't have those numbers uh at my fingertips, so to speak. >> So, the
045reason I asked that question is because again, at finance and facilities, I know um it was questioned what the repurposing of the ACTI building will be when that project is complete. When that will be, I don't know. But um I don't know if there if there's an answer for that at this point. I I know Dave had questioned it and Al had said there's nothing in there. No idea of repurposing is what I saw. And I just I mean to to add 2600 square ft here and to have the space at ACTI that's going to be vacated. I'm not sure if that's in discussion anywhere. I get it. Like HVAC and electrical upgrades. Absolutely. Um but I I just am curious. >> Justine, I I like the way you you're thinking right now. Uh unfortunately,
046the county is not in a position uh to move forward right now uh with the ACTI. I mean there there's not even a land purchase at this point and they're still in discussion phases. Unfor unfortunately uh we continue to turn kids away that want to be uh career and technical skilled uh kids uh in in a much needed much neededed thing for central Pennsylvania and for the Gettysburg area. So unfortunately we're we are years away from a a a career and tech center here in Adams County and I'm and it's shameful that we have to uh deal with that here in Adams County that you know this should have been addressed years ago and so and so so I would say uh repurposing that building has really not even been a thought uh on too
047many minds and I don't think it's been part of the Joocc discussion. There were rumors out there that I that uh I had heard and so on that uh that Gettysburg administration and board um did not want the career and tech center here or that they had all these grandiose plans. I point blank asked our former superintendent, our current superintendent and and uh board officers at that time and that was simply a false statement. That was untrue. So unfortunately we are years away from a career in tech center. I'm hoping uh the JOC and with their reorganization uh and uh the superintendent of record from New Oxford I I I'm I'm really hoping that uh you know that they uh with the support of all the board boards in Adams County will really push forward
048and at le maybe maybe some of these grants that the politicians have said that they will support and maybe some of these other uh industry and businesses and so on will uh really uh uh move forward and be motivated to want to support uh this uh project financially. But I but until a land purchase is made, I think this is it's kind of dead in the water right now and it hurts me to say that. >> Bringing back to the administration building renovations, any other questions on that item? Okay. Hearing none. Um Josh, I'm sharing with the board. Uh Josh has agreed um Dave had reached out about asking if he could kind of walk through that space and see what that would look like. Um and Josh has graciously agreed to do that uh
049before the meeting on the 20th at 6 p.m. for anyone who is able to come a little bit earlier and interested in doing that. Um I will send an email as well as a reminder um for the upcoming meeting. A reminder that that means this item then is up for a vote on the agenda on the 20th. Great. Thank you so much for all of your information for both items this evening. All right, moving on to board committee reports. >> 7.2. >> Oh, I'm sorry. 7.2. Thank you. Lincoln Elementary School bridge repairs. Can someone give a small overview on what that is? >> So, um, through the HVAC project we had at Lincoln over 24 and 25, um, at the beginning it was determined that the bridge needed some attention. The top of it was,
050uh, little eroding a little bit. Um, so plans were made to epoxy coat it or to refinish it, epoxy coat it, and then add new handrails. After throughout the course of the project, it was determined um that underneath the bridge in the last 10 or 12 feet before the stairs uh up towards the police station um under the underside was spalling uh and rebar was was visible. Uh so this is something that now needs to be addressed. Uh there was a originally a $50,000 um allowance to address the surface aesthetics of the of the bridge and in doing so uh re researching with an engineer and our and our project team um it was determined that to fix the bridge properly requires removal of the last excuse me last 10 ft of the building of
051the the bridge um right at the bottom of the stairs as I discussed and um replacing that entirely, adding new rebar, shoring everything up, and then and then doing the epoxy coating and the new handrails. That equated to $40,52 and additional funds required to do to make the necessary uh corrections. There's now a change order in place waiting for a vote. >> Thank you. So Kevin, you're uh so you're talking it's going to be $90,000 and $52 instead of $50,000. >> Correct. And then the $50,000 just comes off the top and >> and I and I would assume it's hard to see in that picture, but there is a middle pier there. So they're going to take it from that middle pier out. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any additional questions? >> Okay.
052Hearing none. Thank you. um board committee reports. Tim, >> I'll go first since we're on that subject. Um so, building finance met and we discussed said bridge that we just talked about. Uh we also talked about the link u administration building remodel and uh and Dave Sites had uh mentioned about wanting to revisit uh um part of the um team room um process. So, that's where it was at. Um the other thing is uh um the ACTI meeting um we discussed of course they are um the acting head of that is retiring and uh they are actually in in the middle of u interviewing people for that position. Um and then most of us just paying bills and everything else. And then we did have an executive session after that discussing um land. That was
053about it. >> Great. Thank you. Um the policy committee >> no report from our policy committee at present moment. Um as of this month our committee meetings are still occurring on uh policy committee the second Tuesday of the month and finance and facilities the third Thursday, I want to say. All right. Um, we are still >> Yeah, that's a little early. We Kevin and I were just It's the 15th because the first was Thursday. So, typically >> Thank you. Thanks for that heads up. >> So, it'll be next week. >> Third week is coming about as early as it can be the 15th. >> It'll actually be both. Next Tuesday is the second Tuesday, so that'll be policy. And then next Thursday is actually the third Thursday, so it'll be excellent facilities. So, we have
054both in the same week. >> Much many committees happening. 13th, correct? 13th. >> And has the time changed? >> Not yet. About 4:00. So, yeah. So, four o'clock. >> My hope here is that um we can as a board kind of do do what's called a like a version of a doodle poll, right? Get get our timings lined up and see if we can uh reorganize that for February. That's the goal. So, we'll be in touch about that because I know there's many people that want to be at these meetings. Um myself included. So, excellent. program reports. Dr. Manser. >> Uh yeah, I just have a couple of date um calendar items. Next Friday, the 16th, uh we do have an early dis early dismissal for our students, excuse me, uh for PD day. And
055then obviously on the following Monday, the 19th is Martin Luther King Jr. uh day. So we will be off that day, which is why our next board meeting is on a Tuesday instead of a Monday. Other than that, we are glad to be back in session, bringing everybody back from the winter break. I hope everybody had a safe and wonderful holiday and New Year's, and we're looking forward to uh the second half of our school year. >> Wonderful. Thank you. Um, thank you again to everybody here and listening for uh working through the learning of procedures and Robert's rules alongside this board. Um, we'll we'll keep at it. Our next meeting is on Tuesday, January 20th. Can I have a motion to adjurnn, please?