{"date":"2025-01-22","type":"CBOC","videoId":"Jvh94J4I3Bs","audioDuration":9312,"speakers":{},"utterances":[{"start":3722,"end":28798,"speaker":"A","text":"Reminder to everyone to press the people button when you want to speak. Again, thank you, everyone. Welcome to tonight's meeting of the Citizens' Bond Oversight Committee. This was the meeting I think was originally scheduled when— November, maybe, and then rescheduled to December. But we made it tonight, and looks like we have a quorum. So, Olivia, if you could call the roll, please."},{"start":30178,"end":30387,"speaker":"B","text":"Janet."},{"start":33003,"end":36694,"speaker":"A","text":"Present. Present."},{"start":37641,"end":40803,"speaker":"C","text":"Kathleen. Present."},{"start":42777,"end":206980,"speaker":"A","text":"Great, thank you. And we have 5 of 6 members present, so we have a quorum. And again, thanks to the committee members for your flexibility in scheduling so that we could get this meeting in. Just a few opening remarks. As a reminder, we were going to meet in November, and the meeting covers the period of July 1st through September 30th. That's the fiscal period that we're covering with the reports that, that are included with the attachments and what we'll be discussing. I know that can be confusing given that we're already in January. And in the next meeting, then we'll review the October 1st through December 31st period. Okay, I just want to remind everyone we're here as the Citizens' Bond Oversight Committee. I think, as I thought about the meeting tonight, often the committee members are asking probing questions and really digging into what the district is doing. And I just wanted to say, I think we're all here in the right spirit. Many of us are parents of kids in the district, or have deep connections to Redwood City and the schools, and we care a lot about the district's success, and we know it's a very hard job, especially in these times, to, to run the district and educate our kids the way that we all hope they will be. And I just want everyone to understand that there are 4 meetings a year where the CBOC comes together, and we don't represent our personal interests anymore. We represent the taxpayers and voters in Redwood City who, when they voted for this ballot initiative, said, hey, We want citizens' oversight of this expenditure. That's an important component of us voting yes. So we put on our committee hats tonight, but always with respect to the goal that we're trying to accomplish together. So with that, uh, we'll move into agenda review 2.1, changes to the agenda. Um, I would recommend that we move up item 5.6, which is the Measure T update. From Will, it's, I think, pretty short. And so we can move that up to after the action item. So make that the new 5.1 is my suggestion. So Will can, can leave after that update, or whenever he'd like. Any discussion on that, or anything else moving on the agenda? Okay. All right, so that'll be the new 5.1 then. So that takes us into approval of the agenda then. Is there a motion?"},{"start":206980,"end":209787,"speaker":"C","text":"So moved."},{"start":209787,"end":212722,"speaker":"A","text":"Thank you, Janet. Second?"},{"start":212722,"end":213252,"speaker":"D","text":"Second."},{"start":213252,"end":213925,"speaker":"E","text":"Carl."},{"start":214374,"end":214936,"speaker":"A","text":"All in favor?"},{"start":215497,"end":215545,"speaker":"F","text":"Aye."},{"start":215545,"end":245191,"speaker":"A","text":"Aye. Okay, thank you. So agenda is amended accordingly. And so we'll move into item 3. On the agenda, which is public comment on items not on tonight's agenda. So if anyone from the public would like to address the committee this evening on items not on the agenda, now is the time for that. Chris Robell, I see, stepping up to the podium."},{"start":246332,"end":247135,"speaker":"G","text":"Thank you. Is this on now?"},{"start":247600,"end":247729,"speaker":"H","text":"Yes."},{"start":247954,"end":248114,"speaker":"A","text":"Okay."},{"start":249303,"end":444650,"speaker":"G","text":"Thank you. So I wanted to bring up a topic regarding— it was discussed, I believe, in November. Board of trustee meeting, and that pertains to an ask by the district to spend $17 million of Measure S money, so almost 20%, I think, of the, of the first Series A tranche on lighting, replacing functional light bulbs that are fluorescent to LED. And I'm concerned about that. And sorry. Oh, okay. I'm concerned about that on multiple fronts. And Carl, I think, did an excellent job summarizing the concerns which I share, those being, number 1, this is a sole source contract. Number 2, this is an enormous amount of money, right? So $17 million, which is really going to cost closer to $35 million with interest. That comes out to something like $2,400 per light fixture with, including the, the financing costs. I mean, nobody— no, that doesn't pass the reasonableness test. $2,400 to take out a working bulb and replace it with an LED bulb, that doesn't help education at all. So I know there's a state law, Assembly Bill 2808. There are 1,100 school districts in California. I guarantee you they're not spending $35 million to replace the bulbs. There's some other way to do it. So I'm actually on the Bond Oversight Committee. I'm the vice chair for the San Mateo Community College District Oversight Committee, and I checked with the Chief Facilities Officer, and they're doing it themselves. So you can, you can ask yourself whether this even is a legitimate use of bond money. That's one question I think that the CBOC should be looking into. Using independent bond counsel— not its own council because this is not a school facility. This is in the repair category. So the community college district is not using bond money for it, and they're doing it at a cost of a few hundred thousand dollars—all three Skyline, Kenyatta, and, um, and, uh, uh, uh, CSM. So, um, and so That also is— just doesn't pass the smell test. Why is this community college district doing it for a few $100,000, and you're going to spend $35 million? And then the last thing is, is it legal, right? So is it legal? Well, it's not a capital asset, right? I don't think these go on the balance sheet. So the bond money has to be a capital asset unless you're going to aggregate these and put them on the balance sheet. Number 2, I don't think— so that's number 2. It's not on the bond project list. I don't think voters expected that you'd be spending $35 million of their taxpayer money on light bulbs. That wasn't in the list. There, there were a lot of discussions about all kinds of things, but that wasn't on there. So for a lot of reasons, legal questions that were— need to be answered by independent bond counsel, because we know the school district's counsel will say they're always doing fine, no problems. And the second one is the, the, the misuse of money. And so I really ask that you please highlight this to the public. Obviously, you can't approve or not approve the spending, but you can highlight it to the public. And if there's any more money, if they want to spend— think about workforce housing. If If this, if this goes through, can you imagine how much workforce housing will cost? Like, every little thing you're going to do, like, it's totally an example of how it's unaffordable and they're mismanaging money, right? So I think having the private sector do something like housing would be the better answer. So thank you for considering."},{"start":446700,"end":558333,"speaker":"A","text":"Thank you. Anybody on Zoom with a hand up? No. Okay. Don't see anyone else here in the audience, so we'll close out the public comment section 3.1 and move into Section 4, which is our action section. We only have one action item tonight, which is to approve the minutes from our last meeting, August 29th. Any discussion on the minutes from the last meeting? One thing I wanted to bring up, and we can decide whether this is— needs fixing or not. So if you look at the minutes, 5.4.3, from our last meeting. It basically says, review the list of no-bid contracts since the last meeting. The committee reviewed and discussed a list of no-bid contracts that were executed by the district since the last meeting. The committee had a discussion on the process of the no-bid contracts. So that's factually correct. But as you may recall, it was quite a lengthy discussion. It involved this contract from Sage for $540,000. That was not bid, and was that— what was the board take on that? And should we have a session about learning more about no-bid contracts? So the conversation was more extensive than is recorded here. I wanted to note that and see if the committee feels like we need to update the minutes accordingly, or if you're comfortable with this high-level summary of that topic."},{"start":558333,"end":574191,"speaker":"H","text":"And Sorry, I wasn't present at the last CBOC meeting, but could add some information about the competitive approach to that contract that happened."},{"start":574191,"end":622709,"speaker":"A","text":"The SAGE contract? Yeah. Well, stick around because that's on the agenda for tonight. It's actually 5.3 on tonight's agenda, so we'll come back to you for sure. Will— so you don't get to leave after 5.1 anymore. So we do have 3 items on the agenda tonight on no-bid contracts, 2 specific instances and 1 general topic, which is actually— I guess it's— it was 5.1 on the printed, now it's 5.2, which is like, what is— what are the rules around no-bid contracts? Because that was a hot topic at the last meeting. So my question is, are you comfortable with how the minutes describe the last meeting and the the discussion we had there at a high level, or would you like to see the minutes amended?"},{"start":627486,"end":628800,"speaker":"F","text":"I'm fine with it the way that it is."},{"start":629073,"end":630066,"speaker":"A","text":"I am—"},{"start":630066,"end":634330,"speaker":"F","text":"sorry, yeah, I'm fine with it how it is. And then this meeting is kind of a follow-up to that."},{"start":637472,"end":660766,"speaker":"C","text":"I am okay the way it is. However, I will refer back to you, um, chair, uh, regarding what exactly are your concerns that have been left out. And there was a high-level discussion that did take place, and we were all there for that. But if you wanted something specifically added, um, do you want to refer to that? And then, or is it just— do you want to hear more of—"},{"start":660766,"end":745208,"speaker":"A","text":"It was just more about making sure the record is clear on what we did in the meeting, um, since it's on the agenda for tonight, specifically the Sage contract, which was discussed in some detail at that last meeting. I'm okay leaving it the way it is, knowing that we're talking about it tonight. Maybe if we weren't talking about it tonight, I would say, hey, we should really correct the record here because we did talk about it and it doesn't show up in the minutes. So I guess I just convinced myself that I'm fine with the way it is. So does anyone— Carl, are you okay with it as is? Yes. Okay. Okay, in that case, do we have a motion? Well, first off, was there anything else that somebody wanted to discuss from the minutes from last time? Okay, in that case, is there a motion to approve the minutes? And all in favor? I— okay, great. Motion passes. Minutes are approved. And that takes us to Section 5, Information Discussion Items for tonight's meeting. And as we agreed, we're moving up 5, 6. So, Will, you're up to give us an update on Measure T remaining projects, please."},{"start":745208,"end":879377,"speaker":"H","text":"Okay, so our focus has been on the district-wide Phase 2 solar project. So since our last meeting, we went through the competitive RFP process. We received, I think, 8 proposal responses, did an evaluation, interview, and selection process. We proceeded with the lowest dollar per watt vendor initially, which was Cal Solar. We spent about a month, maybe a little bit longer, working through procurement with them. We uncovered that they had actually used one of their subcontractors as their DSA experience requirement, and we did not feel that they adequately responded or were any, you know, any longer qualified. And we're trying to gain a presence in, in the California K-12 scene. So we then transitioned to the second lowest dollar per watt vendor. We were able to work through the procurement process fairly quickly. They were clearly experienced with DSA. We were able to get them under contract at the end of last year. And so currently we've completed geotechnical investigations and reporting, topographic investigations, surveys and reporting, as well as the title and boundary reports. We've engaged on the design process for all sites and are currently, as of today, just transitioned from 30% to 60%, uh, design completion and are working towards, uh, DSA submission. Besides that, we're still supporting the district in state funding audits and reporting, which is an ongoing support. Thanks."},{"start":879377,"end":898343,"speaker":"A","text":"Will, in the agenda item 5.7, we have bond expenses that cover the period July through end of September? Yes. Change orders, no-bid contracts, new projects authorized. Were there any of these items in Measure T?"},{"start":898343,"end":906592,"speaker":"H","text":"Erica, I think that you have a list of expenditures, but— I included Measure S expenditures."},{"start":906592,"end":916250,"speaker":"A","text":"We have the expense. Yes. Okay. So I guess, sorry, to be more specific, were there any contractor change orders, no-bid contracts, or newly approved board projects?"},{"start":916250,"end":922533,"speaker":"H","text":"There was nothing for Measure T in the Q3, July 1 to September 30 window. Okay."},{"start":923559,"end":930050,"speaker":"A","text":"Just confirming that because we didn't get any, any information on that. Rick said there wasn't any, so just double-checking on that."},{"start":933320,"end":933496,"speaker":"E","text":"Okay."},{"start":933576,"end":939266,"speaker":"A","text":"Any questions for Will? Thank you. Oh."},{"start":939266,"end":956959,"speaker":"C","text":"I'd just like to make a comment. Thank you. Thank you for that due diligence. I think that's, it's highly— it's good information for me to hear that, that you actually exposed what could very well have been an ongoing problem. So thank you for doing that. Absolutely."},{"start":962029,"end":1027990,"speaker":"A","text":"All right. Nothing else on Measure T updates, then we'll move into— Agenda item, what's printed as 5.1. And this is an agenda item that came from our last meeting. Review and discuss district controls for no-bid contract purchases and understand the triggers that move from no-bid to bid, etc., etc. You know, what kinds of categories, amounts, approved vendors. So just as quick background, this was a discussion that we had on the— at the August meeting. I think it was prompted by the Sage contract, which is item 5.3 on the agenda, but it has come up a couple times before that where it wasn't really clear what the requirements were when you need to bid in the educational context. And so the purpose of this item was to get educated on that. So we're all on the same page when we ask questions about these types of contracts. So, Rick, did you have something specific to cover here, or how did you want to approach the topic? Okay."},{"start":1028953,"end":1670219,"speaker":"E","text":"Yeah, well, I'll take this one, Carl. Thanks. Okay, thanks, Eric. Um, so to kind of stage the conversation a little bit, there's kind of a little bit of a broader discussion that's delivery methods for construction projects, right? Speaking to a bid contract or for bid materials, you're talking about something very specific where the district puts a project out to bid, and they're bound to accept the lowest, the lowest bid, whether it be a goods or a service or a construction project as a whole. Um, there are numerous, uh, different delivery methods that can be, that can be used to a different— to deliver a project. Um, some are what's called a best value method. Um, that's a little bit of, uh, what Will was speaking about a little bit earlier. What they did with their solar project there is they did a best value selection where they took into account not only the monetary, uh, cost that the vendors were providing, but also their experience as well. There's different delivery methods for that process as well, such as lease-leaseback, design-build, progressive design-build. All of those methods that we're talking about, right, that we're talking there are not bid-out contracts. Those are selected based on their best value, which include a cost component of it, but it is also selected on their experience and, and their, their track record of work. So they would provide a proposal responding to an RFP that was issued, and then they would be evaluated that way. There's also other thresholds for that. So just to, to lay a little bit more of the foundation, this district, Redwood City, is a California Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act district. That means they've adopted an accounting method with the state that allows the bid threshold to be $114,800. Um, for traditional construction projects. So what that means is any project over that, over that $114,800 is for a traditional construction project, has to be bid. The California Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act, which is CUPCA, um, is, is, uh, the acronym for that. CUPCA also allows anything above that $114,000 mark to $220,000 to be what's called an informal bid. Um, that bid then goes out to a select number of pre-approved contractors by the district, and they provide a bid for that. That bid— and, and this is where it gets a little bit nuanced— that bid, those are based on estimates. They give you a little bit of room on the estimates if it comes in a little bit high, all the way up to $235,000. So if the project comes in— if the project's estimated at $220,000, Comes in a little bit higher, $235,000, you're still good. If it comes over to— goes over $235,000, you have to go to what is a full formal bid, which then goes out to the contracting community at large. That's that in a very— in, in a very nuanced way. There's some difference with the formal and the informal bids. I'll touch on that. Not only does it go to a larger contracting community for a formal bid, It also has additional noticing requirements for where it has to go out and be publicly noticed in a, in a local newspaper or a local trades journal for 2 weeks as well. So those are kind of a little bit of the difference there. There's also— and now I'm going to get a little bit into the no-bid options that the district has. There are what are called piggyback contracts. Those piggyback contracts have been bid or procured in it with a different district or governmental agency in the state of California, and they have established set pricing for that already. And any other governmental agency in California can come in and play that same pricing for it and proceed with the project without bidding as well. Some examples of that are OMNIA contracts. There are CMAS contracts, which is California Multiple Award award schedule, and there's different components of that. Now, there is a little bit of— again, there's always some nuance with this, with these kind of things. There's a little bit of nuance with both piggyback and CMAS and all those different procurement methods. You cannot piggyback or CMAS an entire building. The, the way that the law reads is that the labor has to be an ancillary component of the installation. The way it's been explained to me several times, uh, at different districts from, from other attorneys is that it makes sense that when you're buying furniture, you can buy it in an omnia contract. The furniture has to be put together, has to be bolted to the wall. All of that is ancillary commodities, large commodities. Carpet, where labor is really not the most expensive part of the carpet installation. Carpet those kind of things can be CMAS. Your athletic fields, there's a, there's a bunch of different options there, but I hope kind of giving some examples there lets people see that the actual commodity, the price of the good, is basically the smallest point, price point of the contract, or is the largest, I'm sorry, and the labor to install is the smallest. So you've got those, those 3. You also have your energy contracts. California passed a law California contracts under 4217. That is the energy code that allows contracts to be no-bid that provide monetary savings to districts for energy. Again, I'm, I'm going a little bit high level here, and because we're gonna get a little bit more nuance with that in the next item, but that law was passed to encourage districts to make energy savings, and that is another Another option for a no-bid contract. Sole source justifications. So if there is a sole sourced item and there's a long list of items that can be sole sourced, and there's a long list of items that can't be sourced, I'll give a couple examples. Pipe— piping is a commodity. A piece of copper pipe is the same piece of copper pipe that you're going to buy. It's the same schedule, it's the same size, it's the same size. That's the same that you're going to buy from either— paint, it's a commodity, paint is paint. But things like your HVAC system, um, having— there is recognized value with having the same HVAC system at every single site, so your maintenance team is working on the same units. It creates value. Things like your lock system, your keys and your locks, um, there is an advantage to having the same key in the same lock locking system at every single site district-wide. So there, there's a maintenance advantage there, and that they allow you to sole source those, um, the, the, that material as well, and, uh, the installation of that material as well. Emergencies, urgent needs— a, uh, let's just— I'll use an extreme example. A car crashes into this building tonight and it has to be repaired immediately. Rather than going through the 2-month process of bidding work out, emergency can be declared under declaration by the board, and that project can proceed immediately without bidding. You can get contractors working on it to directly affect that. Um, and then I'm going to touch on a couple others. Uh, then we've got purchasing cooperatives. That's another one. Um, it's very similar to piggyback contract. Those are a little bit more nuanced, um, where groups of school districts, groups of government agencies come together and they negotiate pricing on commodities. Again, commodity installs, you can do it with roofing, you can do it again with carpeting, you can do it on those same commodity type items. All of these are, are examples of sole source. They're sole source and no bid options. Again, looking back at the design-build, the lease-leaseback, those are also technically no bid options, but there is pricing that is included in that decision. Those, and those can be for full buildings, full campuses, full construction projects. For example, if you— and it's very— it's, it's, uh, I'm trying to— I want to word this properly so I can help get the, get the point across here. We use delivery methods like we use tools, right? There are projects where— and I'll use— I'll do it with examples again. A paving project, say we're going to pave a new parking lot, we're going to repave an existing project, an existing parking lot, more or less it's, it's a commodity-driven project. Paving, you can very easily put in the specification what you want the requirements for the paving to be. You have an inspector, he goes out and he inspects the paving. We're building a new school. Do the options of taking the low bid kind of— now you're talking about something where you want somebody with a proven track record of delivering the project on time. Delivering it with good quality, and delivering it on budget. Um, I can tell you that the most expensive part of construction— and I'm sure Will and Nick will agree with me— is when you get handed a change order. Um, those change orders are usually, uh, are usually the, the most impactful. They have a percentage markup for the district, and that's what we try to avoid. So you use those different larger-scale delivery methods on different projects. Because you want to get not just the lowest cost, you want to get the best value for the district. That maybe it's some— I'll use round numbers— maybe the bid comes in at $20 million and you have $5 million worth of change orders, or the bid comes in at $22 million and you only have $1 million worth of change orders. You're— the quality of workmanship, the quality of that, that relationship with the contractor makes a difference in those selections. So those, again, Well, technically they are no-bid contracts. There is a pricing component still involved in that. So I touched on a lot of things there, and, and I apologize for just talking and looking at faces, but I wanted to kind of get some of that information out and then kind of look around and hear some questions or some comments or, or anything that, that the board would like to speak about."},{"start":1670219,"end":1702060,"speaker":"A","text":"That's helpful. Thanks. 2, 2 questions. One, There's a distinction between whether you bid or not and then which bid you choose, right? So in the last remarks, you were talking about building a building. Yeah. One bid might be $20 million and you expect it to be lower quality. The other is $22 million, maybe higher quality. Yeah. But you have bid it out, correct? You have— Selection criteria. I, I want to differentiate whether you bid or not. Yeah. To what criteria you use to select."},{"start":1702060,"end":1757679,"speaker":"E","text":"Exactly. So, In a lease-leaseback project, you actually— you do not bid it out first. You base your selection on the quality of the contractor, the past history, and then you— and then they give you their general conditions, their markups, their fee. So what they want to make on the project, and then that's the financial component of the selection. You then work with them as you're developing the project. And you work with them and they'll go out and get different costs from subcontractors and get different, uh, different, um, different bid, different scopes of work to those subcontractors. But the actual bid does not come through the general contractor immediately up front there. That is a selection based on best value, and that works the same way with design-build and the same way with progressive design-build for those construction projects."},{"start":1759011,"end":1775187,"speaker":"A","text":"Okay, second question, then go for it. Um, you didn't talk about professional services engagements, and I think the one that's on the agenda, 5.3, is actually a professional services— Absolutely. —as opposed to construction. Um, can you speak to that?"},{"start":1775187,"end":1804740,"speaker":"E","text":"Yeah, so, uh, professional services are not bound to be bid in the traditional sense of bid— bidding. You are not required to take the low bidder by law. If it's over $90,000, you are required to put out a public RFP for it, and then you can select based on fee and based on their— based on the fee and their qualifications. So that all works in tandem."},{"start":1804740,"end":1813276,"speaker":"A","text":"So if I heard you correctly, over $90,000, you do need to get proposals. You don't have to pick the lowest one. But you need to get multiple proposals."},{"start":1813934,"end":1835868,"speaker":"E","text":"That is true, but I believe the one you're talking about was Sage, and I'm, I'm just going from my knowledge of Sage. It's not my project, but, uh, that is an energy, uh, energy consultant, correct? It is. Yeah. So there is some— there, there is an exception there again, uh, under, under Prop 39 that allows you, um, to select there, uh, without an RFP."},{"start":1840107,"end":1840461,"speaker":"I","text":"Thank you."},{"start":1840525,"end":1843046,"speaker":"A","text":"I think, Janet, did you want to go next? I—"},{"start":1843416,"end":1874849,"speaker":"C","text":"thank you very much. I have a question regarding— you, you made a comment about two pre-approved contractors. Yes, ma'am. So you have a process that you've already— they've already engaged in, and you already have a relationship with those contractors. And then you made a comment about sub contractors? Do those pre-approved contractors utilize subcontractors? And if they do, are they vetted?"},{"start":1875827,"end":1960036,"speaker":"E","text":"Yeah, so let me touch on that a little bit because there's a couple different phases to that. So at the CBOC, the lower level where you can— that under $114,000, there's what's called the CBOC list of contractors that the district keeps. That list They is updated yearly, and contractors submit their qualifications for that, and then they are approved. It's a financial— it's more or less, it approves them from a financial perspective to make sure that they're able to complete the projects of that size and that they're qualified. On construction projects, anything over $1 million requires a general contractor and the MEP, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing trades. To be prequalified. That's a relatively new law from the 2010s, is about when it came into effect. I, I don't know exactly what year, but the, the goal was to get the contractors that had the more complicated trade packages, which is MEP— those are usually the most expensive and most complicated ones— to make sure the districts are getting a more stable, a stable contractor base that can complete that work. So they are on projects over $1 million. In a traditional bid, in lease-leaseback, and in design-build, they are required to be pre-qualified. And do they—"},{"start":1960214,"end":1973644,"speaker":"C","text":"so they're required to be pre-qualified? They're already on your list of pre-qualified contractors. Do they— does that get reviewed at any specific time? Is it every time they go to apply?"},{"start":1973838,"end":1982641,"speaker":"E","text":"I mean, yeah, so it's, it's, uh, they're —required to submit— this one, it's either through every 3— I believe it's every 3 years."},{"start":1982705,"end":1986173,"speaker":"C","text":"And that's as long as the review process— I'm not going to hold you for the over—"},{"start":1986318,"end":1996048,"speaker":"E","text":"for the over $1 million, they're required to, uh, to, uh, resubmit every 3 years. And then it's 1 year for the CBOC. They have to say that they still want to be on the list."},{"start":2008702,"end":2009328,"speaker":"A","text":"Your questions."},{"start":2011351,"end":2023428,"speaker":"D","text":"Yeah, I, I guess, um, don't want to jump ahead in the agenda, but, um, with the lighting no-bid contract that we're going to discuss soon, uh, which bucket does that— or which, uh, category does that fall?"},{"start":2023492,"end":2036102,"speaker":"E","text":"So that, that, um, I've got some slides on it to do a little bit of a deeper dive into that one. Because I know there, there were some questions on that one, but that falls under your energy contract for your savings. Okay, thanks. The 4217. I look forward to—"},{"start":2036551,"end":2037240,"speaker":"D","text":"yeah, getting to that."},{"start":2037432,"end":2050770,"speaker":"F","text":"Yes, thank you. I think on the higher level question that we have is moving forward with Measure S is, uh, having a breakout list of sole source, no bid contract items so that we can review them."},{"start":2051796,"end":2052486,"speaker":"G","text":"Absolutely."},{"start":2055639,"end":2084101,"speaker":"A","text":"Yeah, and I— we started doing that roughly a year ago, I would say, for Measure T at each meeting. Obviously, we want to continue that. That's how the Sage one came onto our radar last meeting, because it showed up on the list of no-bid contracts for $540,000. Questions? Chit, Paul, anything? So maybe I'll attempt to summarize. It was a lot."},{"start":2084149,"end":2085497,"speaker":"E","text":"I'm sorry. I talked a long time."},{"start":2085497,"end":2117897,"speaker":"A","text":"No, Eric, see, see, push back where you receive it. So typical construction projects, right? You want to go do something up to $114 million. Bids aren't required. You can pick from one of the district's pre-approved contractors and get going. Absolutely. $114 to $220 to $235, roughly. You got to get some in— you need to do some informal bidding, at least get a few bids and pick however you choose. Yep. And above $235,000, it needs to be a formal published bidding process. Correct."},{"start":2117897,"end":2119117,"speaker":"E","text":"Okay."},{"start":2120174,"end":2135600,"speaker":"A","text":"Piggyback, you talked about energy contracts. We'll talk more about that. Commodity items all make sense. Then we come to professional services. And I think what I heard you say is above $90,000, you do need to get proposals. Yeah."},{"start":2135648,"end":2136002,"speaker":"E","text":"And I—"},{"start":2136002,"end":2138383,"speaker":"A","text":"Unless it's one of these exemptions like the energy—"},{"start":2138383,"end":2149620,"speaker":"E","text":"And it might be $92,000. It changes every year with, with inflation. So I, I wouldn't— it literally just changed like 2 weeks ago, and I don't remember off the top of my head, so I apologize for that."},{"start":2151130,"end":2179751,"speaker":"A","text":"As I recall from the August meeting, one of the things that was used to defend the $540,000 contract for Sage was that they were— this was an extension of a previous contract that was done 7 or 8 years ago or something. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but We're going to talk about that specific one, but is there some exemption if you've already used the professional services firm previously, or above the 90 or 92? You need to get the bids."},{"start":2181209,"end":2196793,"speaker":"E","text":"I, I don't want to— I don't know about Sage, so I, I would leave that to Will. But yeah, there's options to add on to the contract, to issue, add services to the contract to cover that. So like I said, I'll let Will talk to specifics of that contract, but yes."},{"start":2196793,"end":2214286,"speaker":"A","text":"Okay, I'm trying to create a hypothetical in my mind. If I, if I bid out a million-dollar project and selected Contractor X to perform it, and 4 years later I wanted to do $400,000 more—"},{"start":2214286,"end":2271708,"speaker":"E","text":"No, no, no, no. Yeah, that's, that's absolutely no. For on the contracting side, that is a no. You will, once you, we complete the original scope of the project, that will— that, that contract will be issued a notice of completion and it will be closed down. And in fact, there's, there's pretty specific public contract code, uh, language that talks about adding scope to a project. We, when we write bids and we write RFPs for on the contracting side of it, when we go to, uh, we cannot add scope that's outside of the original scope description in the RFP or the bid, or you would just— I, I mean, it would just keep going and going and going. That's, that's part of, uh, kind of the, uh, Fresno decision that happened about 10 years ago. And, and, uh, um, so that, that was a big thing that they ended with lease-leaseback because that was getting a little bit abused. So, um, me, that is absolutely no. From on the contracting side, that is not acceptable."},{"start":2271708,"end":2288348,"speaker":"B","text":"Yeah, and real quick, that's also to protect the contractors so they don't sit there and go into snowball effects of getting change orders continuously that are called scope creep. Yep. So they're dead set against it. They would not want to do anything to that because most contractors—"},{"start":2288701,"end":2296876,"speaker":"E","text":"and thank you, I, I don't know if you're in the industry or not, sir, but most contractors want to get in. They make money by finishing the job as fast as they can. That's how they make money."},{"start":2297036,"end":2308658,"speaker":"A","text":"I think it's a little more nuanced with professional services where you may have an ongoing relationship. Absolutely. For legal services, for bond program oversight, for— I mean, these are professional services, right?"},{"start":2309299,"end":2316256,"speaker":"E","text":"Yep. On the, on the professional services side, it definitely is more nuanced. It's not as cut and dry on the— as it is on the tracking side."},{"start":2318340,"end":2319734,"speaker":"A","text":"Thanks, that's helpful. And I do—"},{"start":2320022,"end":2338595,"speaker":"E","text":"I, I also— I want to say, I'm— I do procurement. I've been doing this for 20 years. I am not an attorney, so the nuanced language of it, I, I probably cannot give you— give you advice on. But the general overviews like we're talking here, yes, this is, this is exactly what we're talking about. I, I just wanted to make that distinction."},{"start":2339108,"end":2355715,"speaker":"A","text":"Sure. Yeah, and I don't think we're intending to be lawyers either. We just kind of want to know the general boundaries where we should be asking questions. So other—"},{"start":2360429,"end":2369472,"speaker":"B","text":"but your question to $400,000 additional to the project for a million bid, were you asking if that's just scope creep, or are you asking if there's a—"},{"start":2369568,"end":2420441,"speaker":"A","text":"no, I think, uh, what I was referring to was when we discussed the Sage contract in Aug— at the August meeting. There was commentary made by someone, I'm not sure, that, oh, this is an add-on to something we were already doing. They were prequalified 7 years ago, so it's okay. Yeah. Will, I'm sure, will say more about it. So I— but it was— and Will wasn't here, so I'm not throwing you under the bus, Will. But that's what prompted me to ask the question about, you know, how long can you follow on on an original contract with professional services? Because that's the specific case that came up in August. Okay. Any other questions for Eric on this topic? All right, any public comment on this topic?"},{"start":2420441,"end":2456724,"speaker":"G","text":"Yeah, I guess I would just suggest that maybe the Bond Oversight Committee I think it's great you guys are looking at what are the sole source contracts and asking that, and then as you see them, I think it would be good to highlight to the community that— I mean, legally, maybe you don't have to for the reasons that were articulated, but maybe you still should, right? And so I think if the— if there are a lot of these big sole source contracts for various reasons, I think it would be good to highlight that to the community just so they are aware. Thank you."},{"start":2456724,"end":2700697,"speaker":"A","text":"Thank you. Okay, well, continuing on the theme of sole sourcing and no bid contracts, we have 2 more items on this topic on the agenda. So 5.2 is specific to the lighting retrofit project, and then 5.3 is— we'll come back to Sage and that particular contract from August. So let's move to 5.2 then. So this item is on the agenda following the— if you read the attachment that came with it, there was— the board was presented with a proposal in November to approve this project. This would be the first significant expense under Measure S. Other than paying for Van Pelt, I think, and some software, this— I don't think anything else has been spent on the project. So this would be the first real Measure S expense. The total is $16.9 million. And there's a bunch of detail in the handout here. I, in reviewing this myself, in thinking of my role on the committee here, It did raise several issues that I think we should discuss this evening. One is whether, first off, does it apply as for no bid? Because it— the justification was this Government Code 4217, and we can talk about the details of what that requires. Sounds like, Eric, you have some specific slides to present on that particular topic. Yes, sir. Okay. Then there was a question about timing, right? We don't have the facilities Master Facilities Plan yet. So why go retrofit lights in buildings that may be repaired, replaced, torn down, whatever? And then there was a question about just the total cost and the justification for not bidding this out. Because $17 million does seem like a lot of money to spend for— at $1,146 a fixture. And could someone do it for less? So I think— let me just see if I've got it. So verify compliance with the Government Code 4217, which would allow this to be sole sourced. Is there cost efficiency that could be achieved in doing it a different way? in competitive bid the project and the timing and alignment with the facilities Master Facilities Plan process, which— right, it's not our job to prioritize projects or tell the district when to do what or whatever, but our job is to provide oversight on spending. So it would be inappropriate to spend money to then find out in 6 months that that building is prioritized to be torn down. So that's the only reason I added it to the, the background material here. And then there's some links to the documents that were shared in front of the board for approval. The resolution and the proposal, a couple of documents from Southland Industries, the contractor that was selected to do the design and build in this case, which I link to in the overview document. And the board did approve it. I believe it was 4 votes to 1. I think David Weakley voted against it at the meeting, but it did pass. And so now we have a chance to discuss it here at the Oversight Committee meeting. First off, is there anything— Eric's got some prepared remarks, it sounds like, but does anyone want to comment or, or say anything about it before we hear from Eric."},{"start":2703925,"end":2708905,"speaker":"C","text":"Just mentioned that one of the board members voted against it. Did they preface why they were voting against it? Do you remember?"},{"start":2710752,"end":2751671,"speaker":"A","text":"I didn't have to— don't recall. I'm sure I didn't know if anything stood out. It's on the, the video, um, but I, I know that Weakley did vote against it, and I can't remember if, if he, if he said why. I mean Okay, so great question though. Does anyone remember what he said? Okay, so Eric, are you specifically addressing the GC4217 issue about how this is justified under that energy code exemption that we just talked about?"},{"start":2751831,"end":2767654,"speaker":"E","text":"I'm kind of addressing a, a fair amount of your comments in, in the side deck. So if, uh, if you— the only thing that I don't address in the side deck that, uh, that maybe we could talk to is the master planning, is the question of coordination with the master plan. Okay, all the other items I do discuss in here."},{"start":2768077,"end":2769527,"speaker":"A","text":"All right, you have 3 minutes."},{"start":2771364,"end":3074476,"speaker":"E","text":"Okay, thank you, sir. Start the clock, please. Rick? Uh, Olivia, I'm not able to share my screen. I'm sorry. There we go. Thank you. To pull this up. So again, talking, uh, we're talking regarding the lighting project contract and, and, uh, the, the questions that came up about it. So this is just, um, the, the government code, 4217.12. The full code is, is 3 pages long, but this is the, the summary of the top section right here. Um, so notwithstanding provisions of law that, that allows, um, districts to enter into contract with contractors, um, if they determine that there's a monetary savings, um, for the project So that is just an overview, just to kind of set the stage for the discussion. So the procurement process that we went through, we did an energy assessment, um, that, uh, we worked with PG&E and Southland on developing and developing that energy assessment. They then took that assessment and developed a proposal, um, and we reviewed the proposal, we reviewed the potential savings. There was a public hearing at the, at the board level And then the proposal was approved, and during that process we did confirm with legal counsel. So advantages, um, and, and why, um, these, uh, these projects are like this, um, there is guaranteed savings upfront from these, uh, contracts. So these contractors, these are very specialized contractors that come back and do savings calculations. For these projects and guarantee the savings. There's reduced risk to the district from a design-build perspective for coordination items. This is not— and, and this is, I think, something that's, um, that it needs to be said here and needs to be clarified— this is not the simple replacement of a light fixture. This is also— this is also additional wiring, drivers, new control systems for the, for the lights, and the lights, the bulbs, and then everything that goes with the light. So it's not— we're not putting a guy up on a ladder, he's not unwiring a light and then rewiring a new light, and then they're done. There is programming involved, there's installation of controls, there's installation of new light fixtures and bulbs. Um, there are specialty contractors, um, that, uh, that do these energy contracts that do these guaranteed savings contracts. This also allows us to standardize a product throughout the district for continuity, for maintenance. And like I said, it's predetermined energy savings. And I want to touch a little bit on the standardization. When you hard bid a project, there's what's called a substitution period. Without, without being able to standardize like this, a contractor that is bidding can bid any light fixture that meets those same specifications. So that means that Martin and his team, who's doing the maintenance on this, could potentially have 10 to 15 different light fixtures throughout the district, um, that they'll have to perform maintenance on. Financial benefits of the contract. So that does not show up very well, I'm sorry. It looks much bigger on mine. Um, let me see here. The, the key point to this, um, is you can read right here that there's a $212,000 savings in energy reduction, um, in the 2023-2024 year. There's, uh, there's a $342,000 savings including operations and rebates in the, uh, '23-'24. Now for this project, there are no, uh, there currently are no rebates available, so that is just an operating maintenance savings. So that's a total of $342,000 a year based on 2023-2024 prices, you save— you save $342,000 a year, but you're spending $16.9 million to get that savings. You're spending $16.9 million to give that payback on that. Oh, oh, hold on a little bit. There's— again, there's nuance there. That's 2023-2024 dollars. We'll go to the next slide. In the last decade, your PG&E costs— you're not buying just the '23-'24 year savings, you're buying the, the increase for the next 25 years."},{"start":3074781,"end":3081392,"speaker":"A","text":"Sure, but just to temper that, we're doing a district-wide solar project that will reduce the dependence on PG&E, correct? Absolutely."},{"start":3081489,"end":3184183,"speaker":"E","text":"Uh, yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Couple, couple slides and a couple more slides. I'm sorry. Um, so that's a 7.432% in the, in the last decade has been the PG&E increase. Um, the construction, uh, construction and maintenance cost history, uh, California, we typically use what's called the CCI, the Construction Cost Index, to predict construction costs. That applies to maintenance too, because you've got— you're getting your labor, you're getting getting your same products as the construction cost. In the last decade, the, the increase year over year is about 5.28%. So I'm not throwing— we're not throwing the same percentage at both because they change. They're definitely a little bit different. I don't think it would be fair to throw a 7.4% adder when it's only 5.28% on the CCI. Looking at this conservatively, right, maybe, maybe the increase isn't that bad, so we knock a percentage off for, uh, for the PG&E and go down to 6.5% per year, and then we go down to 5, 5% per year for the construction costs. So kind of conservative estimates. I want to talk a little bit about what this doesn't reflect, and I think somebody touched on the fluorescent ban, um, that, uh, we were just talking— that we were just talking about. This doesn't reflect the cost increase that is going to have to be paid for parts for fluorescent fluorescence, because we don't really know what that's going to be. In about a month, those products are going to be scarcer and scarcer, and any of the maintenance department is pretty much going to be restricted to buying fluorescence off the secondary market. There's going to be nobody in the primary market that sells them anymore."},{"start":3184183,"end":3188303,"speaker":"A","text":"Yeah, I don't think we're questioning that the school— the district has to retrofit to LEDs."},{"start":3188303,"end":3191323,"speaker":"E","text":"No, no, no, I, I know. I'm just trying to walk you through the cost."},{"start":3191323,"end":3200277,"speaker":"A","text":"And, and the main— the $129,000 is a savings in, in the district's facilities department of not having to relamp fluorescent fixtures."},{"start":3200390,"end":3202686,"speaker":"E","text":"Not having to relamp fluorescent fixtures, not having to rebalance."},{"start":3202783,"end":3215790,"speaker":"A","text":"It's a 20-year life on an LED. 20 to 25 years, exactly. So the 5% increase in what exactly? How can you have a 5% increase in not doing the maintenance? Well, you—"},{"start":3215967,"end":3233704,"speaker":"E","text":"the product. So what we're saying is construction costs increase year over year. That applies to maintenance. You're still buying, you're still buying the, the, the, uh, You're still buying the light fixtures, you're still buying the ballasts to replace it, you're still buying the bulbs. That goes up every year. And then with inflation, you're—"},{"start":3233704,"end":3240056,"speaker":"A","text":"by putting in LEDs, you're saving $129,000 on annual operating costs because you're not replacing bulbs and ballasts."},{"start":3240105,"end":3241340,"speaker":"E","text":"Yeah, we're saying the same thing."},{"start":3241645,"end":3247228,"speaker":"A","text":"The fact that the price goes up every year is immaterial because we're not spending the money. That was the whole purpose of the retrofit."},{"start":3247404,"end":3251848,"speaker":"E","text":"What we're saying is you would be spending the money if you didn't. He's just showing the RCSD."},{"start":3252680,"end":3257431,"speaker":"A","text":"Okay, okay, fine. Yeah, just— it's not going to go from 49 to 20-year payback, correct?"},{"start":3258001,"end":3276692,"speaker":"E","text":"It's going to go to roughly 25 here. Yeah. So that— so at a— I'm— and I'm going to kind of toggle back and forth between these two slides. At a 6.5% energy cost projection every year, and that compounds, so it's 6— it's a 6.5% increase."},{"start":3276886,"end":3291928,"speaker":"A","text":"But have you taken into account the reduction in PG&E usage by going to the solar? Because it's not going to be 6.5% against the district's current energy usage, when most of that energy is going to be produced from the solar upgrade we're doing, there will be no PG&E consumption, correct?"},{"start":3292217,"end":3293565,"speaker":"E","text":"Are we going to be net zero here?"},{"start":3294142,"end":3308017,"speaker":"A","text":"Well, I, I don't know, but, you know, during the day when schools are open is when you're producing electricity, right? So your PG&E going up 6.5% is really irrelevant when the district isn't buying from PG&E anymore, correct?"},{"start":3309156,"end":3316182,"speaker":"E","text":"If you're buying 100% from, from— if you're offsetting— I'd have to go back and do the math on, on on what that is."},{"start":3316278,"end":3362928,"speaker":"D","text":"Yes. Sorry, I, I want to get away from kind of the compound interest and potential savings that might, may or may not happen. Was there a cost-benefit analysis done on having the more advanced controls installed? Because, you know, I look through it and it looks like there's a lot of daylight dimming. There's a lot of occupancy sensors, and the way it's run right now is there's— you flip the switch. You flip the switch, yeah. And So it looks like you have a rather advanced system, and you mentioned that there requires to be— or there's a lot of programming and things are required in order to install those more advanced lighting systems. So was there a cost benefit to going with a simplified system that had a lower per-unit cost or anything like that? A simplified—"},{"start":3363104,"end":3363905,"speaker":"E","text":"I'm sorry, can you—"},{"start":3363905,"end":3365572,"speaker":"D","text":"Yeah, essentially an old-fashioned light—"},{"start":3365572,"end":3378316,"speaker":"A","text":"You described the guy going up on the ladder and swap these out for LEDs. Yeah, I mean, you kind of described that as an alternative to the more advanced solution that you've presented here, which is controls and sensors and such."},{"start":3378364,"end":3395354,"speaker":"D","text":"Yeah, so like in a commercial setting now, you walk up to a light switch and it looks very different than it does than the one that I'm pointing at over there. Absolutely. Next to the door. So, um, did you look at, uh, like lighter touch retrofits in order to not have to do this extensive control system?"},{"start":3395450,"end":3427229,"speaker":"E","text":"Yeah, so there We're also dealing with CalGreen energy code in California. Yeah, and so you are required to put occupancy sensors and have a lighting control system with the building code. So if you're going to replace your, your lighting to LED, you're also going to replace your controls if you don't have that existing control system in place. Now, some districts have installed existing control systems on their old lighting, and you can just do kind of the, the flip-flop and the easy, the easy exchange. Versus that, versus, uh, what we're doing. But this district does not have that."},{"start":3428627,"end":3438025,"speaker":"D","text":"Okay, uh, was there a study done to kind of go the good, better, best, or full, or compliance versus the— No, there, there was not."},{"start":3438105,"end":3442009,"speaker":"E","text":"There was not a non-compliance— No, we didn't do a, a non-compliance study."},{"start":3442057,"end":3448837,"speaker":"D","text":"No, I guess a, a, the minimally compliant, minimally acceptable for compliance. No, I, I get what you're saying."},{"start":3448950,"end":3456714,"speaker":"E","text":"No, there was not that one. We know that— well, I could look into that with the engineers and bring it back what that would have, what that would have looked like, um, and see what they say."},{"start":3457276,"end":3461174,"speaker":"D","text":"Um, yeah, and I guess, are we going to get into the Master Plan?"},{"start":3461687,"end":3470125,"speaker":"A","text":"Uh, I think we're purely— well, let— why don't you finish your presentation and then, um, I think it's going to generate lots of questions. Yeah, I'm sure."},{"start":3471071,"end":3503559,"speaker":"E","text":"Um, so yeah, using the compound— compounding, uh, the savings here on that, you get to about a $17 million savings in 25 years. So living somewhere in that 20 to 25 year range, um, your, uh, which is right here, this is your energy savings, that is your, uh, your maintenance savings line, and that's your cumulative total. Living in that 20 to 25 year range right in here somewhere, um, that's, uh, that, that 20 to 25 year range is about your break-even point for the project."},{"start":3504235,"end":3516553,"speaker":"A","text":"So if 90% of our energy going forward in the district is going to be generated from solar, how are we justifying cost savings of not spending energy that we're actually not going to be paying for in the future?"},{"start":3517120,"end":3526888,"speaker":"E","text":"Yeah, I would have to go back and do the math on, on what the amount of energy that's remaining versus what that cost is going to be. That's, that's a good question. Yeah."},{"start":3526888,"end":3530107,"speaker":"A","text":"That's what Wilson just said. Yeah."},{"start":3530848,"end":3533644,"speaker":"E","text":"I would have to go back and look, look at that, that math."},{"start":3533644,"end":3547781,"speaker":"D","text":"I guess with that $17 million of savings, does that take into— is that— is the assumption that all of those fixtures will last 25 years, or is there— because as I've experienced with many different offices and LED fixtures—"},{"start":3547781,"end":3549420,"speaker":"A","text":"I knew you were going to go there."},{"start":3549420,"end":3569378,"speaker":"D","text":"No, they have a high mortality rate. They don't last 25 years. And they tend to— when an LED fixture breaks, you tend to throw it away and have to replace it. It altogether, whereas like these older systems, you can replace the ballast, you can relamp, those sorts of things. So, um, has that asset mortality or the fixture mortality rate been factored into this idea of savings?"},{"start":3569474,"end":3616494,"speaker":"E","text":"That fixture mortality rate is factored in. We've got, um, the bulb and the bulbs and the lighting there. There's a mixture of integrated bulbs and non-integrated bulbs, different depending on what, uh, what, uh, device you're using. But the actual bulbs themselves are anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000, or Dollars, $50,000 to $100,000 hours, which on the school schedule works out to 20 to 25 years, or 20 to 30 years depending on if it's the 50 or the 100,000, and depending on how many hours the bulb's used and so forth. So they do factor in a reduction in, in efficiency because they do break, and they factor that— that is inside of their formula for that calculation. Construction."},{"start":3616607,"end":3624847,"speaker":"A","text":"Yeah, but is there an actual guarantee from Southland? I mean, you mentioned a guaranteed energy savings that you're part of what you're procuring."},{"start":3625449,"end":3656255,"speaker":"E","text":"Yeah, that is, uh, that is definitely part of it. They come back and they do commissioning, um, for the first 3 years. They come back once a year and they commission the system and make sure that it's performing. And they'll, uh, and, and that'll be part of their, their processes. If it's not performing, they'll have to figure out why, and they'll to make some, make some corrective actions to take care of that. Um, beyond, uh, that, once they hit that, that 5-year mark, they then come every 2 to 3 years and then they, and then they commission it. And I'm sorry, let me give you an example."},{"start":3656335,"end":3662175,"speaker":"A","text":"Every 3 years, the contract here that was approved at the board meeting, it says a 1-year warranty in Section—"},{"start":3662352,"end":3681213,"speaker":"E","text":"that's a, that's a warranty versus the commissioning. So, okay, that's a warranty on the fixtures. They're going to come back and and they're going to commission the system to ensure that it's providing the energy savings. So the, the failure rate is worked into that number, and they're commissioning to make sure it's providing that same— the, the, the, the rates that they're projecting here."},{"start":3681791,"end":3686906,"speaker":"A","text":"So can you— I don't want to sideline you. Go ahead, finish here. Yeah, we'll come back to that."},{"start":3687243,"end":3762979,"speaker":"E","text":"So just pulled a few examples from different schools just of lighting fixture costs for these similar kind of retrofits. Updates. Um, they're roughly similar. I mean, we're plus or minus depending on what year they were in. I've got some— a school in Alameda, a school in San Mateo, and also school in Sonoma County. And you can see kind of those lighting fixture, uh, changes all run about $1,000 a fixture, um, plus or minus a few dollars here or there. Scope's going to change and vary depending on how high ceilings are, how many, uh, the economy and scale that kind of thing. But these are all plus or minus, um, these were all 4217 contracts— or I'm sorry, these were all bid contracts. I apologize, these are bid, bid-out contracts, um, to kind of give you a, a comparison of bid versus what we got for the 4217. And again, it's all not perfectly apples to apples. Light fixtures are different, ceiling heights are different for fall protection equipment. You may need means and methods for getting to these light fixtures. It, it changes a little bit. So there is a little bit of a there. But, uh, you can see that, that it all meets around $1,000 a fixture, or a little bit less than, a little bit higher in some places. Okay."},{"start":3763060,"end":3775762,"speaker":"A","text":"I just wanted to share, and I'm happy to circulate. I've got the proposal here from the Sacramento City School District, K through 12. 5,272 light fixtures replaced. That sounds like a similar scope."},{"start":3775762,"end":3777683,"speaker":"E","text":"Uh, yeah, that's about half. Yeah."},{"start":3777683,"end":3782164,"speaker":"A","text":"Total project cost $2.9 million, roughly $500 per fixture."},{"start":3782164,"end":3784798,"speaker":"E","text":"And so when was that? I'm sorry."},{"start":3785473,"end":3798653,"speaker":"A","text":"Um, let's see what the date is on this. Was November of '23, so the year before this one was about a year ago. So I think, you know, we can cherry-pick examples, I'm sure, but is it possible— it's not—"},{"start":3798701,"end":3800227,"speaker":"E","text":"it's never apples to apples. Sure."},{"start":3800387,"end":3809603,"speaker":"A","text":"Yeah. Is it possible that this project could be done for $15.9 million rather than $16.9 million, and that million dollars could be used for something else that the district prioritizes."},{"start":3810261,"end":3825777,"speaker":"E","text":"I mean, that, that's a pretty big hypothetical. Is it possible? I, I can't say it's impossible. No, I, I can't tell you that it's impossible. I can't tell you that it's impossible that we'd bid it out and it would be more money. I, I mean, either way, I— we're asking a hypothetical right now."},{"start":3827046,"end":3831367,"speaker":"F","text":"Sure. I mean, we eventually have to get into the facilities Master Facilities Plan portion of this conversation."},{"start":3831463,"end":3832700,"speaker":"A","text":"Is there more on your—"},{"start":3832861,"end":3835341,"speaker":"E","text":"no, no, that was just this portion of Okay, so yeah."},{"start":3835341,"end":3864382,"speaker":"A","text":"So I think you covered kind of two things, if I could summarize. Anyone else, please jump in. One was the government code section, and you gave a summary up on your slide. And then you went into kind of the payback period analysis, taking into account what was not presented to the board. You've taken into account some additional cost of energy going up and cost of maintenance going up. Yep. Yep. And— Was there anything else that you wanted to cover on these topics?"},{"start":3864638,"end":3865888,"speaker":"E","text":"No. If you have questions regarding—"},{"start":3865920,"end":3871801,"speaker":"A","text":"I'm sure there'll be lots of questions, but happy to address. Okay, who would like to jump in? Jen, did you—"},{"start":3873852,"end":3894527,"speaker":"F","text":"general question regarding timing of the facilities master plan and, and those specifically to this item 5.2, uh, buildings that are getting demolished. Why would we put in new lighting fixtures at $1,000 a piece? When they're coming down, but we just don't know when and specifically what due to that information not with us yet."},{"start":3894527,"end":3952306,"speaker":"E","text":"So, um, we are currently coordinating the Master Plan. We have initial site plans that we have put together for this, and this is not every single light fixture in the district. We did try to project the best we can, um, based on the feedback that we've already got from the sites. We've had our site committee meetings already Um, Carl was actually a part of one of them, uh, a couple of them actually. Um, and we've got kind of these initial site plans, so we, we did do our best to coordinate. Am I telling you that everything— no fixture is going to be wasted? I, I don't— I'm not sure that I can, I can say that zero fixtures will be wasted, but we definitely did take the, the vast majority of the master planning that's already been done and into account while we've been doing this. And Every day that you wait longer to do something like this, the price goes up. That's, that's cost escalation. So there is, there is a value to expediting things as fast as possible."},{"start":3952932,"end":3991144,"speaker":"A","text":"I mean, I will challenge you, Eric. Page 30 of the Southland proposal details the number of fixtures per school. Yep, all 12 schools are listed, plus some additional locations. Even Garfield, which has a whole brand new practically campus, has 500 fixtures. Taft got a new school, 610 fixtures are required there. You know, Kennedy had a major— in Measure T, 1,100 fixtures there. So it looks like in the 14,749 fixtures, every single school is accounted here. Every school is definitely touched for sure."},{"start":3991369,"end":3992268,"speaker":"E","text":"Yes. Right."},{"start":3992332,"end":3992413,"speaker":"A","text":"So—"},{"start":3992413,"end":3995045,"speaker":"E","text":"But not every building in every school is touched is what I'm getting at."},{"start":3995222,"end":3996570,"speaker":"A","text":"Yeah."},{"start":3996747,"end":4004339,"speaker":"E","text":"Well, I guess is that— And I'd be happy to put together a map and share it with you to show you what buildings were not. That's a pretty straightforward exercise."},{"start":4004339,"end":4032980,"speaker":"A","text":"I think there's the fundamental questions on the table, just to summarize so we can keep on track here. One, is this legally a no-bid situation? I think there's more discussion on that. Two, could it possibly be done for less than $16.9 million if it were competitively bid, whether it's required to or not? And then 3, the timing relative to the planning that you were just mentioning, Jen. So I just wanted to summarize. I think those are the 3 topics on the table."},{"start":4033478,"end":4034073,"speaker":"E","text":"Completely agree."},{"start":4036612,"end":4067163,"speaker":"D","text":"I guess I had— No, go ahead. You're on. Is there any type of phasing that will be done for this in order to try to align it to the Master Plan? Like, there are certain buildings that you've— that have been heavily worked on. and you know that there's not likely a lot of construction that's going to be occurring there, whereas there's other places that probably have a higher need. And is there a way to— are you developing any type of phasing in order to try to balance that Master Plan? And then also—"},{"start":4067308,"end":4069619,"speaker":"E","text":"I'm, I'm gonna let Nick take that one."},{"start":4069876,"end":4075461,"speaker":"D","text":"Okay. And oh, yep, totally lost my train of thought. All good."},{"start":4076546,"end":4079201,"speaker":"A","text":"Yeah, that's right. While you think about it, I'll chime in on the schedule."},{"start":4079362,"end":4085765,"speaker":"J","text":"Um, so Nick Olson, program manager for RCSD. Uh, we are working on a schedule now."},{"start":4086360,"end":4090248,"speaker":"E","text":"Um, it'll be done school by school, so one school at a time."},{"start":4090329,"end":4107748,"speaker":"A","text":"So as we're working on that schedule, there is an order of how we're prioritizing schools based on if they've had previous work, um, also based on procurement timelines for some of this material. School. So, uh, we're in contact with a contractor right now. Okay."},{"start":4107828,"end":4117041,"speaker":"E","text":"Oh yeah, so to, so to summarize that, it will be done— it's not like a million people are going to show up on day one and work on every school. It's going to be done one school at a time. Okay."},{"start":4117185,"end":4128513,"speaker":"D","text":"And then I guess with that phased construction approach, that's built into the schedule already in order to, um, there won't be any cost increases or change orders as a result of, uh, trying to coordinate with—"},{"start":4128513,"end":4131268,"speaker":"E","text":"No, that, that was, that was built into the schedule. Yes."},{"start":4131462,"end":4153963,"speaker":"A","text":"Okay, so what if you decide, just hypothetical, I mean, we've got Atalante on here at 823 fixtures. Let's say the board decides 6 months from now we're going to tear down Atalante and rebuild it, right? So we don't need to do the Atalante upgrade, right? Because it'll be done with new construction. So does the $16.9 million go down accordingly with Southland Industries, or—"},{"start":4153963,"end":4161631,"speaker":"E","text":"We would get a credit change order for them for the for the work and they would provide the money, the contract would be reduced in that amount."},{"start":4162368,"end":4173352,"speaker":"B","text":"So that's, that's what I was going to ask before, was that this— the contract itself is not set, it's, it's a fixed fee estimated bid. It's based on your number of fixtures, or that can fluctuate?"},{"start":4173496,"end":4185169,"speaker":"E","text":"It's a fixed fee based on the number of fixtures. It cannot fluctuate up unless we approve a change order for them to do more fixtures, and it can fluctuate down if we approve a change order for them to do less fixtures."},{"start":4185528,"end":4187910,"speaker":"B","text":"So if they do less fixtures, you're not going to be spending the—"},{"start":4187975,"end":4190633,"speaker":"E","text":"you're not gonna— you're not gonna spend the, well, $16 million?"},{"start":4190714,"end":4195420,"speaker":"A","text":"No. Just to tie that off, could you point to where that is in the agreement? You don't have to do it now."},{"start":4195549,"end":4198072,"speaker":"E","text":"You can follow up after. Yeah, if you're okay with that."},{"start":4198137,"end":4200158,"speaker":"A","text":"Yeah, I would absolutely do that."},{"start":4200789,"end":4205993,"speaker":"B","text":"Did they have a set guaranteed amount though that they needed to have to at least determine their cost?"},{"start":4206928,"end":4212011,"speaker":"E","text":"I, I mean, the cost is based off the $11— believe it's like $11,000. Yeah."},{"start":4212140,"end":4218647,"speaker":"B","text":"So they negotiated for that complete amount. Exactly. But they're willing to take the risk and the loss if they have to, or whatever."},{"start":4219128,"end":4224985,"speaker":"E","text":"It's, it's not really a loss to them. It's a— we didn't do the work, we'll give you them, we reduce the contract price."},{"start":4225162,"end":4230826,"speaker":"F","text":"Okay. Sorry, back to schedule. Is this all to be done over school breaks or overtime?"},{"start":4230826,"end":4263581,"speaker":"J","text":"So I was going to get to this in 5.5, but I could do it now. So right now the submittals have been approved. And the contractors procuring the equipment, and on schedule to start this spring. And during the school year, it'll happen after hours, so starting at about the end of the school day, um, so 3 to 11-ish. And then during the summers, it'll be regular work hours."},{"start":4263581,"end":4269604,"speaker":"B","text":"Is there panel work that needs to be done for this, or is it just wiring through the, you know, ceilings."},{"start":4269717,"end":4286453,"speaker":"E","text":"And no, there's, there's no upgrading of panels. We're actually reducing the amount of draw. So you're gonna— the panels are good. And then there's— and just to clarify, I'm talking breakers, not lighting. There's actual lighting control panels that are going in. But yeah, breaker panels are fine."},{"start":4289954,"end":4337496,"speaker":"B","text":"The ROA still doesn't— the math doesn't look very clean. I'm just wondering why the justification, especially with the solar. I kind of I 100% have to agree with Carl on the fact that if they're doing, you know, a 90% initiative towards solar, the ROI still is not going to look good after 20 to 25 years of usage for that. I understand— I actually don't have any real big disagreement with the price per fixture, whatever the actual bid amount. I mean, material costs, everything else, it's just going to fluctuate a little bit. But why did the board approve it just based on if there is going to be some energy savings with solar, you know, the ROI doesn't look great still. 20 to 25 years probably extends at least 30 to 35. So I'm just wondering, still doesn't feel like a great justification."},{"start":4337496,"end":4345357,"speaker":"A","text":"And just to be clear, Paul, when you spend bond money, it's twice the cost, right? So it's not $17 million, it's $35 million when you take interest into account. I understand."},{"start":4345421,"end":4346640,"speaker":"B","text":"That was mentioned earlier as well."},{"start":4346640,"end":4349897,"speaker":"A","text":"So there's zero payback on $35 million of bond an expense."},{"start":4349977,"end":4371605,"speaker":"B","text":"But I mean, an expense is an expense, and construction cost isn't a— whether you use the bond money, it has to get spent on construction costs only. So we're not taking that, that, right? We cannot— the money has to get spent is the real deal at some point on something. So, but my question still being, this one does not look like a good return."},{"start":4372135,"end":4439420,"speaker":"E","text":"I, I do want to just really kind of quickly Add a little bit more context to the discussion here. As of right now, there's going to be a 90% reduction in energy. One of the things that we are not talking about is that we are going to be adding air conditioning to every single classroom in the district. We are also going to be— and the board has given us very clear direction to not use, um, to not use natural gas heating anymore in the district. So we are adding what are going to be the highest load equipment to all of your campuses. We're going to add huge load, huge loads of equipment to all of your campuses. So you are not going to reduce 90% of your energy offset by the time that the HVAC and the, uh, the HVAC upgrade projects are done. You are likely going to cut into very substantially because right now your only— the, your real electrical burn is your equipment, everything that's plugged into your wall and your lighting. You— the electrical—"},{"start":4439452,"end":4448609,"speaker":"A","text":"just to be clear though, the ROI was based on buying energy from PG&E for the next 20 years, and we know— absolutely— even if it's only 50% replaced by solar, it's still not going to pencil."},{"start":4448689,"end":4459222,"speaker":"E","text":"But you still have— but if it's 50% replaced for solar, you still have a $1 million bill a month, and you're still saving $200-something thousand dollars. I, I'll get you a special—"},{"start":4459238,"end":4463078,"speaker":"A","text":"$100,000 a year instead of $200,000, right? As long as you're—"},{"start":4463336,"end":4483513,"speaker":"E","text":"I guess what I'm trying to say is, as long as you're paying more than that saving pencils out, you're saving that same amount of money. It's— I can do that. I can figure out— I can come back with a, with a better calculation, calculating in the HVAC equipment that we're adding and the, the solar. But I I wouldn't— I don't think that's going to be interesting."},{"start":4483513,"end":4518187,"speaker":"A","text":"I think the fundamental question that's on the table is in the 20-year lifespan of the fixtures, we're not going to have a payback. And the Government Code 4217 or whatever that was used to justify this says that you need the energy savings need to exceed the cost of the project, then you can use that Government Code exemption. How are you justifying that the energy saved exceeds the cost of when the, the cost is $16.9 million and you're not going to get $16.9 million, excuse me, back in energy savings in 20 years."},{"start":4518187,"end":4523738,"speaker":"B","text":"So to that, Carl—"},{"start":4523738,"end":4527973,"speaker":"A","text":"I know you're not the lawyer, but Eric, we're putting you on the spot because you're the guy talking."},{"start":4527973,"end":4560604,"speaker":"B","text":"But Carl, I think what the justification is that that goes back to seeing the bigger picture. No, it would work. For me, actually having the electrical load total would be better in this, in this math, because his logic, his math behind the 6% is definitely wrong. Okay, fair enough that we just— but he cannot calculate it based on what he's going to get back in energy savings from solar if he has a— if he doesn't even know what the math would be for the increase in energy costs for HVAC and other controls that they have to put in place."},{"start":4560604,"end":4561870,"speaker":"A","text":"But is that— But he does—"},{"start":4562286,"end":4600366,"speaker":"B","text":"He does— it still, it still accounts for something. If we're adding one, right, then the— you'll still see a reduction in another. So if, if they're going to add in the solar costs and as being 90%, and we're adding in a technology such as HVAC for every single room, then that— there's a reduction in that usage for that. But having the full picture, it does matter in this case. Let me just— because it does allow the justification for the board to also say, okay, yeah, we are not going to get a clean ROI on this But they have to make a decision based on X code, but they also have to make a decision based on overall picture. So this goes back to the Master Facilities Plan for me."},{"start":4600366,"end":4607713,"speaker":"A","text":"The board was already approved this, so they presented the information that we're seeing was presented to the board to approve it. They didn't ask for additional information."},{"start":4607713,"end":4620200,"speaker":"B","text":"I wasn't at that meeting. I have no idea. But if they— I would like— again, back to Jen and Carl, I would like to see the facilities master plan because if that's going to have possibly what other energy projects that they're going to have. and we can add, you know, get more."},{"start":4620328,"end":4623406,"speaker":"F","text":"Yeah, I think the cost savings, though, is really only replacing it or not."},{"start":4623951,"end":4634177,"speaker":"B","text":"HVAC doesn't matter. HVAC, though, will— well, his— the justification for Eric is that his— the HVAC draw from the overall power consumption."},{"start":4635555,"end":4637382,"speaker":"F","text":"But if we don't replace them, it's still going to do that."},{"start":4639722,"end":4654990,"speaker":"D","text":"Yes, but if, if they do not get replaced, the overall load going into each school is going to increase so much that probably the entire electrical infrastructure probably need to be upgraded. So I think there's probably a lot of justifications to be done. But yeah, I think that, that makes the comparison impossible."},{"start":4655800,"end":4668439,"speaker":"B","text":"If it's only a 10% savings, if it's only a 10% saving on the current load of the— then it's not much. You know, we all— I like the $300,000. If you amortize it out, it's 49 years, correct?"},{"start":4669087,"end":4672501,"speaker":"E","text":"So 49 years, that's amortized out, not going to get any better."},{"start":4673050,"end":4677235,"speaker":"A","text":"9 years, correct? Because there's going to be some solar savings will push the payback even further."},{"start":4678214,"end":4683153,"speaker":"B","text":"But he's saying that the solar saving is going to be offset with HVAC, so you can't include that into the math."},{"start":4683410,"end":4691685,"speaker":"A","text":"Then don't include the solar. The payback without solar— if we didn't do the solar project, do you agree the payback is 49 years on this project? I don't think—"},{"start":4691749,"end":4708460,"speaker":"B","text":"I think with his 6%, yes. But if that's— if you said that the 90% of that energy savings went into HVAC, no, they can still keep their 10%, and then it's only just an energy cost increase. If we're saying the entire 90% of the solar saving is going to go into HVAC—"},{"start":4708460,"end":4747661,"speaker":"A","text":"Just take solar out of the equation for a minute, Paul. Assume we're not doing anything with solar. Okay. The ROI that was presented to the board and in the materials is based on buying power from PG&E at the increasing rate, and the energy savings from the retrofit project is $212,000 a year. Plus the operation savings pencils out to a 49-year payback. If you happen to add solar and, and remove some of the PG&E, it pushes the payback even further out. So we don't have to argue about solar or not. It would only make the payback longer if you're paying less to PG&E, thus saving less."},{"start":4747661,"end":4755302,"speaker":"B","text":"Right, okay. And I think it's a little bit of semantics, but a little bit of an overall— for me, I, I, I would do want to see the overall picture."},{"start":4756184,"end":4766536,"speaker":"A","text":"Sure. I think the— so issue number one is, can this even be sole source? Because the government code says the energy savings needs to be more than the cost."},{"start":4766921,"end":4770783,"speaker":"B","text":"The sole source, I think, is because it's a single technology. It's only light fixtures."},{"start":4771167,"end":4777161,"speaker":"A","text":"No, I mean the government code. No, that 4217. I'll happily read it to you if you guys would like."},{"start":4777209,"end":4808164,"speaker":"D","text":"Sorry, um, I have a— probably a quarter Sort of dumb question, but does 4217, the, the ROI methodology that you used in order to estimate the ROI of $17 million, is that standardized, or is that a methodology that was developed to justify this contract? I guess, are you using a state standard for calculating that ROI using standard variables and everything? Or was that developed by the contractor?"},{"start":4810735,"end":4818590,"speaker":"E","text":"So I'm sorry, can your question is, is the, the ROI is a calculation based on kilowatt-hour price?"},{"start":4819329,"end":4822863,"speaker":"D","text":"No, I'm asking at the $17 million ROI. Hold on."},{"start":4823361,"end":4829610,"speaker":"A","text":"Let's clarify your terms. So the $17 million is the cost. Oh, I'm sorry. So when you say ROI, but the projected—"},{"start":4830108,"end":4840592,"speaker":"D","text":"the projected savings is roughly $17 million. No, as well, the, the big curve that you had on one of your slides over 25 years, that's the break-even, the break-even."},{"start":4840849,"end":4861297,"speaker":"A","text":"Okay, so the savings is the $383,000 a year. So there's no escalation, but it wasn't presented in the materials to the board when they approved it. The escalation was not included, correct, Rick? So they approved it based on the numbers At 49 years return on investment."},{"start":4861297,"end":4861556,"speaker":"B","text":"Correct."},{"start":4861556,"end":4867828,"speaker":"A","text":"And if I could read the government code section to you, because you didn't include all of it, you did include the intro."},{"start":4867828,"end":4870383,"speaker":"E","text":"Yeah, that's— I don't want to put 5 pages on."},{"start":4870383,"end":4916824,"speaker":"A","text":"4217.12 says that a public agency can enter into a sole source energy service contract if the anticipated cost to the agency— I'm paraphrasing slightly— for electrical energy or conservation services under the contract will be less than the cost of the savings, essentially, is what it says here. 4217.12, Section 1, which makes sense. The state doesn't want you to spend $100 million to save $1 million. Yeah. They want you to spend $1 million to save $2 million, correct? Correct. So once again, how is this project justified under 4217 when it clearly states that the energy savings must be greater than the cost of the project? and it's not the case in this project."},{"start":4918171,"end":4923203,"speaker":"E","text":"Um, I disagree with your assertion that it's not the case. It is if you factor in the escalating cost of PG&E."},{"start":4924982,"end":4932707,"speaker":"A","text":"But that wasn't figured in. It wasn't in the board materials that they approved. It was not in the legal analysis that was provided in the resolution to the board."},{"start":4933156,"end":4946393,"speaker":"E","text":"I don't think there was a legal— was Rick— was there a legal analysis? No, there, there was not. Rick told me there was legal counsel review. Yeah, there was legal counsel, but there was no legal written legal analysis to the board. I'm, I'm sorry, I was just confused. Used. That's my fault."},{"start":4946554,"end":4985096,"speaker":"A","text":"The board resolution says, whereas Government Code 4217 authorizes a public school district to enter into a contract, and then it says whereas, whereas, whereas. So there are findings in the resolution that assert that the— this is approvable under 42— or sole sourceable under 4217. It's right written in the resolution that the board approved. I don't disagree But it does not apply in my reading. Once again, I'm not an attorney, but I don't see how you could possibly determine that this, with a 49-year payback, that you can use this government code exemption."},{"start":4985096,"end":5011579,"speaker":"E","text":"Again, I'll just say, you have to factor in escalation. I'll acknowledge that the board item maybe said— I believe the exact terms on it was that it had the number and it said on the 2023 to 2024 costs. And maybe the board cover sheet should have factored in that. I talked about the escalation of PG&E costs. I don't, I, I don't disagree with you there."},{"start":5011788,"end":5097730,"speaker":"A","text":"I mean, I'm glad that you did mention— I mean that because then, then you have to take in the solar question then, because PG&E is going to go away based on— Will, how much are we spending for solar across the district in total? And then what was— and then how much was spent previously for the schools that already have it? Just ballpark. $2.3 million. $2 million of that one grant. So roughly $14 million or so. $14 million, yeah. $14, $15 million. So you almost have to factor that into the cost too, because you're offsetting your PGE cost using that solar investment. So the district is spending $14 million of bond money on solar $17 million on LED retrofits. And ultimately what you get— sorry, this is my personal commentary— you get a room that's lit just like this. It just happens to be LEDs instead of fluorescents. It's just not serving the interests of the students. I just really feel like very strongly the taxpayer money is not being wisely spent here. This should be competitively bid. If we can save a few million bucks, by getting another— yes, it might be more, but what's the risk of waiting to getting a competitive bid and seeing if it might be less? Sacramento did it for half the price, so it's possible. Maybe, but why not? If you never ask the question, you'll never know."},{"start":5097730,"end":5115327,"speaker":"F","text":"Well, that's true, or unless it's too late to do that if they've already contracted it for— but just curious, is this something that could be commodity? Pricing, like a job order contracting sort of pricing without needing the bid? Or is it in the ballpark of that?"},{"start":5115873,"end":5122009,"speaker":"E","text":"Uh, probably not. There's, there's a fair amount of labor tied to this. I would have to go back and calculate that. Okay."},{"start":5123600,"end":5125961,"speaker":"B","text":"Do you have the labor versus materials costs?"},{"start":5126170,"end":5127262,"speaker":"E","text":"Yeah, we have a schedule of hours."},{"start":5130909,"end":5167360,"speaker":"A","text":"I hate to beat a dead horse, but I found the section here. So in the In the resolution that the board approved on November 20th, it says, whereas the analysis includes data showing that based on the energy cost savings to be generated by the project, the cost of construction, the lighting project under design-build energy service contract attached herewith with the contractor will offset and will be less than the anticipated marginal cost to the district of the electrical or other energy that would have been consumed. Assumed. I mean, that's just factually incorrect, is it not?"},{"start":5168949,"end":5199704,"speaker":"E","text":"Again, I, I disagree with the assertion because there's no calculation. Energy prices go up every year. That's the missing piece there. And we continue— and I, I'm— I do believe that the kilowatt load— kilowatt-hour loading for the solar and for the HVAC systems do need to take and take place to see the full picture this. We're, we're predicting things in the future that are going to be installed without actually doing the math right now. Did the district have that?"},{"start":5199832,"end":5204721,"speaker":"B","text":"Does the district have— like, did the board have the Master Facilities Plan and know what the HVAC role it is?"},{"start":5205443,"end":5223458,"speaker":"E","text":"The board— that same— no, I'm sorry, I believe the board meeting before that approved the HVAC projects to be performed at all the sites and approved the switch to heat pumps from gas. Did they have the cost? There was a— yes, there was an estimate of, of the construction cost presented at that board meeting."},{"start":5225653,"end":5233184,"speaker":"F","text":"Okay, so I've been an energy study on every building in the Master Plan, including other things too, like insulation, window replacements, any of that."},{"start":5235091,"end":5240586,"speaker":"E","text":"There's energy calculations that get done with all the projects. Yes, ma'am. Was there assessment done? Was there—"},{"start":5240811,"end":5242926,"speaker":"B","text":"I'm sorry, was it full energy assessment done?"},{"start":5242974,"end":5252310,"speaker":"E","text":"It was not a full energy assessment as part of the Master Plan. It's a— basically, it's a kilowatt-hour assessment based on what they're adding and what they're getting rid of."},{"start":5252679,"end":5262036,"speaker":"B","text":"Okay. But it did not take insulation or window replacements into account, correct? No. Okay."},{"start":5263898,"end":5271185,"speaker":"E","text":"That would be done once we actually know if that's going to be a project, and that's when you would do those energy counts. Yeah."},{"start":5271490,"end":5284574,"speaker":"C","text":"I have a question about solar, if I could, real quick. So you, you, you keep talking about the, the solar installation, and do we need all new roofs for that? Is that going to be incorporated in that discussion?"},{"start":5284831,"end":5290836,"speaker":"H","text":"I mean, no, because no roof-mounted system— I'm sorry, what? There will be no additional roof-mounted systems installed."},{"start":5291109,"end":5293758,"speaker":"C","text":"It's all going to be— it's all perfect. Okay, good."},{"start":5293838,"end":5298590,"speaker":"E","text":"Thank you. We will— you will need new roofs as part of the HVAC project."},{"start":5298654,"end":5301223,"speaker":"A","text":"There will be sections of roofs that need to get replaced for Yes."},{"start":5302653,"end":5304452,"speaker":"B","text":"All the solar projects were done under Measure T."},{"start":5304837,"end":5423511,"speaker":"A","text":"Is that correct funding still? Yes. Okay, so to recenter us here, there's 3 topics. One, can this project be sole sourced under, uh, 4217? Even if it could be, should it be competitively bid to save the taxpayers money? And third, the timing of executing it without knowing which buildings would be affected by the Master Plan. Which is still being worked on. So I would maintain the first one. Do we have a legal opinion from DWK? Is it DWK? Sorry, it's on your mug. I noticed. Is it DWK? Do we have a legal opinion from them on why this is allowed under Proposition 39? Rick, a written opinion that— No, not So who wrote this in the resolution that the board approved, that the energy savings would exceed the cost? We have confirmed with legal they did not write a legal opinion. Okay. Can we get a legal opinion on how they justify this in the resolution where it seems to be unjustified in all the materials provided to the board that they made the decision on? I would suggest that we at least hear from the district's counsel on why they think this is true. Because I don't think it's true. The second point is, why not competitively bid it regardless of whether you could have used the exemption? Why not to go out to competitive bidding? If it could possibly— on a $17 million project, which is going to consume roughly 20% of the remaining bond, the first tranche of bond money, it's a big check to write. I mean, just in service to the taxpayer's interest, wouldn't it be right to competitively bid the project?"},{"start":5423511,"end":5434585,"speaker":"C","text":"What's the pros and cons about competitive bidding process? I thought I heard it earlier, but just—"},{"start":5434585,"end":5504746,"speaker":"E","text":"yeah, we, we talked a little bit about being able to select specialty contractors that do these energy contracts. We talked about reduced risk because they can do their assessments for change orders, because they can do their assessments to the buildings prior to bidding the project. So basically, if we had design documents prepared and bid, they would not be able to do in-site investigation on the building itself prior to. So any unforeseen conditions that they uncover, they would, uh, have— then we'd get— start getting change order costs for those. The doing it this way, they do the assessment prior to, they're able to see the conditions of the site, put together the design documents with the contractor together, and then eliminate some of those risks. Um, we also talked a little bit about standardization of products to make sure that we get the standardization of products and we don't get products substituted through the bidding process. And then we also talked about the— excuse me, the predetermined energy savings costs that they project out as part of this contract versus a typical design-bid-build project. You would not get that predetermined projection."},{"start":5504746,"end":5519537,"speaker":"D","text":"So are the light fixtures that are included in the scope of work, are they the kind of the picked fixture by the district for all facilities where— or was this something that was recommended by the contractor? Yeah, we—"},{"start":5519697,"end":5520130,"speaker":"G","text":"they looked at—"},{"start":5520258,"end":5538491,"speaker":"E","text":"they presented different options, the contractor did, and then we work with maintenance and operations to pick one that they think is going to suit the district. Familiar manufacturers. Yeah, familiar manufacturers. And then also they take into account the color, the temperature of the light, and, and all of that. And, and, uh, we, we work with Martin and his team on, on that selection."},{"start":5539244,"end":5571649,"speaker":"A","text":"So in the proposal from Southland, I mean, you admit, and correctly so, they did the whole assessment So the design part has been done in the proposal. Every single fixture is enumerated here. It's listed the exact fixture, new, you know, Lithonia, 8-foot, whatever. Yeah. So if all that work has already been done, it would be very easy. I mean, this is my naive statement, I'm sure, but to give this to another contractor who did one of the school districts you showed or Sacramento, the one that I said and said, hey, how much would you— how much would this cost to do?"},{"start":5572468,"end":5574796,"speaker":"D","text":"That, that feels ethically dubious."},{"start":5574893,"end":5575792,"speaker":"B","text":"That's— you don't do that."},{"start":5575856,"end":5576257,"speaker":"A","text":"You can't."},{"start":5576338,"end":5576980,"speaker":"B","text":"No, you can't."},{"start":5577125,"end":5583162,"speaker":"A","text":"You would never. No, I'm saying pay Southland for the design. They've done the design work. Compensate them for the design work."},{"start":5584912,"end":5598657,"speaker":"B","text":"They, they're in the business of bidding out for a project. You could have hired an independent sub that did just design work or something, but not, not— you cannot just shop their their, their contract route."},{"start":5598898,"end":5601678,"speaker":"F","text":"Is the contract released and procurement's already started? Is that right?"},{"start":5603413,"end":5605293,"speaker":"E","text":"Submittals are, are— yes, submittals are in."},{"start":5605984,"end":5613037,"speaker":"F","text":"I don't know what we're talking about then. We already have a contract in place. So moving forward, it would be nice to know about ahead of time."},{"start":5616411,"end":5617954,"speaker":"A","text":"Well, if, if there—"},{"start":5618259,"end":5619785,"speaker":"B","text":"Carl's objecting, that's why."},{"start":5620107,"end":5632439,"speaker":"A","text":"Yeah, if there's a legal challenge to the basis by which it's sole sourced presumably the contract work would have to be stopped, and until that is adjudicated, correct? Probably would have to sue to do it."},{"start":5637593,"end":5637673,"speaker":"B","text":"You—"},{"start":5637834,"end":5645652,"speaker":"A","text":"I don't think you can stop the PO once it's been cut. Who's the contractor again? Sorry, they would have a legal right to sue."},{"start":5646262,"end":5650966,"speaker":"F","text":"Uh, you have to be cautious with all of it too. You don't want to like ruin that partnership either if they're a Yeah, right."},{"start":5651175,"end":5660986,"speaker":"D","text":"And if you think $17 million is a lot, put construction on hold for a while. Yeah, like that, numbers start getting really big really fast."},{"start":5662094,"end":5670282,"speaker":"A","text":"I think the fundamental question for the committee is, is it the most efficient spending of the taxpayer money? That's, that's our job."},{"start":5670523,"end":5697979,"speaker":"B","text":"But, but that's fair. I, I don't see an ROI, but I, I would have liked to see the whole picture on budget. Um, to me, I don't know what the decision was based on, and you can object to those things, um, but without— for me, without seeing the full picture, it doesn't make sense. I would have preferred to see a full energy assessment that— I mean, it's hard to say, oh yeah, okay, construction, and you know, the windows and insulation would have been awesome, right? But I don't—"},{"start":5697995,"end":5700912,"speaker":"A","text":"I just don't know if we could get that prediction early."},{"start":5701235,"end":5717420,"speaker":"B","text":"That's pretty hard, right? But I, I think with the HVAC calculations taken into account for Measure S funding, for that separate bucket of money, that's— then it's possible. But whether it— you know, if the objection is whether this is a great use of funds and whether there's a good use for—"},{"start":5717613,"end":5729881,"speaker":"A","text":"I feel the same. I don't see any gaps. I would still love to see a map of where these pictures are going, just to be able to know it's not going into a building we already just did that already has all these pictures upgraded."},{"start":5730623,"end":5733799,"speaker":"F","text":"That knowledge without having the facility Master Plan."},{"start":5734136,"end":5735837,"speaker":"B","text":"Did, did they install into the—"},{"start":5735837,"end":5738419,"speaker":"A","text":"are LEDs into the newer buildings that were—"},{"start":5738644,"end":5748317,"speaker":"E","text":"depends on what year they were installed. I, I'd have to look. I'm— yeah, I would be willing to bet new buildings have LED lighting."},{"start":5748814,"end":5751621,"speaker":"H","text":"Uh, don't quote me on that, but yeah, I would expect them to."},{"start":5751701,"end":5774432,"speaker":"A","text":"I mean, as an example, there are 412 fixtures. It's been at least 10 years. There are 412 fixtures in this building that are in the bid, and this building, if the workforce housing project goes through, will be torn down and replaced. So would you feel it's a good use of taxpayer money to replace 412 fixtures in this building and then tear it down?"},{"start":5774432,"end":5781690,"speaker":"F","text":"No, but if we have the facilities master plan in 6 months from now, I'd say don't start that construction in this building until 6 months from now."},{"start":5783167,"end":5787469,"speaker":"A","text":"And how do you know which ones did not start? I mean, how does—"},{"start":5787919,"end":5791772,"speaker":"B","text":"that's the schedule. That, that's the project manager can handle that. That's, that's what his job is."},{"start":5791852,"end":5796797,"speaker":"A","text":"But the board hasn't prioritized any spending on the Facilities Master Plan yet."},{"start":5797230,"end":5799799,"speaker":"B","text":"I think he did say that they did get a— they reviewed it."},{"start":5800184,"end":5801340,"speaker":"A","text":"Nope, it hasn't even been produced."},{"start":5801404,"end":5809415,"speaker":"E","text":"They have not prioritized the full— they have— the projects they have authorized are the lighting and the HVAC projects, which are the big energy projects."},{"start":5810297,"end":5824104,"speaker":"B","text":"Yes, sir. Um, also, the vendor said that they're, they're willing to take the buyback on ones that are not used, so the district is covered."},{"start":5824425,"end":5826654,"speaker":"A","text":"We want to see that because I don't see that in the agreement."},{"start":5826991,"end":5828049,"speaker":"B","text":"You don't have to ask for the contract."},{"start":5828354,"end":5830759,"speaker":"A","text":"I have the contract. You don't see the language?"},{"start":5831160,"end":5832523,"speaker":"B","text":"Okay, it's not in the language."},{"start":5833581,"end":5838649,"speaker":"A","text":"I mean, I'm not a construction contract specialist, so you should look, or, or Rick said he would look."},{"start":5838697,"end":5840717,"speaker":"E","text":"And I told you I'd get it— I'd get that language right. Yeah."},{"start":5841263,"end":5849000,"speaker":"B","text":"So I mean, well, there, there's going to be some waste, but there, if they're willing to buy back or, you know, not charge based on what was not used, then that's—"},{"start":5856817,"end":5858486,"speaker":"F","text":"I think we need to move along."},{"start":5858823,"end":5868647,"speaker":"A","text":"I think we need to move forward. Okay. Um, any further questions or comments? Any public comment on this topic?"},{"start":5870956,"end":5965573,"speaker":"G","text":"Yes, I think there's— there, I know there's an error in that chart that shows the break-even time analysis. I've done a lot of those. So the— when you're— when you're, you know, marching along and you hit year 25 and you say, okay, we've recouped the $17 million, that's flawed because the cost isn't $17 million. It's $35 million. So it's not a 49— it's a— there is never a payback to this. So you have to factor in the interest costs. To— that the taxpayers are paying. So that's the key point. It's not 17, it's 35. Maybe it's 34, but you're paying 4.24% interest on these bonds, which— PS, the district floated these things in June of 2022. God knows why you floated $90 million of bonds, you know, almost 2, 2 years ago when you're not even using the money for anything except consultants. But so we've already started to pay the interest, and when you Anyway, so I think that's a really, really important point. That's way bigger than this HVAC solar thing is the interest cost. So therefore you never achieve breakeven time. The other issue I want to just bring up is— and Carl has this, and David Weakley and I have been talking, and David's interested in speaking with this person. So Michelle Rudowski is the person. She's the Chief Facilities Officer who's doing this for less than $1 million for— and I don't know how many fixtures, so I don't have the per fixture cost, but I'll get that from her. And I encourage the— they're doing it themselves, right? So they're not doing it, and they're doing all the refurbishment of all these fixtures, or the retrofit— excuse me, not refurbishment. So I think it's good to share best practices, and maybe their team can help or do it. But there's got to be some cheaper way than $35 million."},{"start":5965830,"end":5976889,"speaker":"B","text":"Thank you. I disagree with the $35 million mark, though. I don't think you're going to have interest over the course of 5 years at that rate. You would still have to buy— this money would still have to be spent."},{"start":5982509,"end":6021814,"speaker":"A","text":"Something I forgot to ask earlier, and I apologize for not getting— in the signed contract, it says pricing is based on prevailing wage non-union labor. And is that indeed true? Because at the board meeting, I can't remember your gal. Is it Jennifer that presented at the board meeting? Yeah. She said that this would be union labor in using local from the union, the red, because my other comment was, let's give a Redwood City contractor a chance to bid on $17 million work rather than someone in Southern California. And she said, no, it's, it's going to be local because we're using union labor. But here it says non-union labor. Do you—"},{"start":6021814,"end":6028848,"speaker":"E","text":"Let me— that one I was not prepared for, so I'll look into that. Non-union labor."},{"start":6028848,"end":6036359,"speaker":"A","text":"Page 29 of the agreement. Bullet number 4, I think, says non-union labor assumptions and exclusions."},{"start":6039282,"end":6040567,"speaker":"E","text":"I will double-check on that one for you."},{"start":6042174,"end":6050783,"speaker":"A","text":"Can you imagine what it would be with union labor? Would be more than $16.9 million, I believe. But you can try. That's a joke, Carl."},{"start":6050847,"end":6053385,"speaker":"B","text":"The unions are there to— for, for families to go eating."},{"start":6053755,"end":6060838,"speaker":"A","text":"So, no, I'm supportive, but I would love to see local workers do this $17 million work. If it's, if it's done."},{"start":6064884,"end":6090238,"speaker":"E","text":"Okay, so, uh, just real quick, I'm sorry, Carl, just 1.3.0, I mean, goes over changed work in the contract, and it talks about how they provide prices for scope, for scope changes in work. So if we, if we do in fact change work, they have to present a price, uh, for a price for us to change that work. I'm sorry, what— if I didn't say that, what—"},{"start":6090303,"end":6097427,"speaker":"A","text":"1.3.30? 1.3.30. Okay."},{"start":6098155,"end":6116639,"speaker":"E","text":"Um, it says change work means any work that differen— that is different from the original scope of work or work that changes the contract price and time. And then if you go back up to definitions to change orders, It says that they have to provide us with a written justification of the price of the change."},{"start":6116639,"end":6121726,"speaker":"A","text":"Which makes total sense if they're asking for an increase, right? That would be a change order."},{"start":6121726,"end":6130939,"speaker":"E","text":"A change in work would be a decrease too. There's deductive change orders. It's that you're changing scope either way."},{"start":6138230,"end":6168612,"speaker":"A","text":"You might not get the same cost back though that you paid for a fixture, but you'll get some. Yeah, okay. Yeah. All right, so I think the follow-on action items, Rick, a legal reading on the resolution, which appears to not be correctly stated. Eric, I'm not sure, was there an action item for Eric on energy calculation, Chit Paul, that you wanted to see as a follow-up? No, or no, I, I would like to see it with the—"},{"start":6169016,"end":6175002,"speaker":"B","text":"what Carl and Jennifer said. I would like to see it with the facilities Master Facilities Plan. I would like to see the HVAC and overall energy consumption."},{"start":6175066,"end":6181404,"speaker":"E","text":"Yeah, I, I think if we factored in HVAC and solar, we could get the engineers to calc that out for you."},{"start":6181696,"end":6206573,"speaker":"A","text":"That'd be very cool if we could see that. No problem. Were there other actions? There was the facilities master plan timing. 5.5. Yeah. No, but I mean the relative to the lighting project. Was there an action item to see? You wanted to see building maps. Yeah."},{"start":6206669,"end":6210844,"speaker":"F","text":"Can we see the map of what, where these are? I think that you mentioned that you could do that."},{"start":6210844,"end":6213477,"speaker":"A","text":"The age of the building, basically, is what you're asking for."},{"start":6213477,"end":6218551,"speaker":"F","text":"Just to know the areas that are going to get the new one. So even if in the future we can reference facilities facilities Master Plan that—"},{"start":6219097,"end":6225667,"speaker":"E","text":"yeah, I'll just take a, a, maybe if this works for you, I'll take an overhead and I'll just highlight where, where it's going. Great. Yeah, thank you."},{"start":6226068,"end":6247487,"speaker":"D","text":"And the awarded scope of work has a schedule in there, and it shows starting, you know, roughly in a couple months and then ending mid-2026. So, um, is, is there a risk to having to rework that schedule in order to align to the Master Plan to that might cause more change orders, uh, with this awarded work?"},{"start":6247487,"end":6249090,"speaker":"E","text":"It, it won't cause more change orders."},{"start":6249186,"end":6250132,"speaker":"A","text":"We'll, we'll, we'll—"},{"start":6250389,"end":6261386,"speaker":"E","text":"they'll rework the schedule with us. They're, they're good partners. They'll come to us. We'll talk about it. We're already working on that. Those discussions have already been happening, and so, um, they will not push back on that. Great."},{"start":6264897,"end":6321311,"speaker":"A","text":"Um, the Since our next meeting, I'm not sure the exact date, maybe somebody has it handy, and this is a timely topic. One of the, the actions that the committee can take per our bylaws is to form an ad hoc subcommittee at any time, and I would like to recommend that we create one specifically around this topic to review some of these materials that Eric's going to provide, Rick's going to provide, so that we can review and discuss those in a subcommittee meeting, and then they can present whatever is deduced or found from that back at the next CBOC. So my proposal is we create an ad hoc subcommittee specifically on agenda item 5.2 that will report back on any new information at the next meeting. And you can volunteer or not to be on the, the ad hoc subcommittee."},{"start":6323013,"end":6338491,"speaker":"B","text":"I'm not going to volunteer to be on the subcommittee, but what I— my recommendation is those— you actually take that subcommittee information and data, you actually ask to present it back to the board to say, listen, these are the findings that we thought were questionable, or items you—"},{"start":6338491,"end":6444744,"speaker":"A","text":"I mean, that certainly could be a recommendation out of the, the subcommittee. Absolutely. Whether the board would accept the presentation, it's up to them. But yeah, still get to speak at the public citizen as such. Yeah. Voice your concern. Uh, is anyone interested in being on this ad hoc subcommittee? I'm interested, um, in reviewing these materials and then coming back with a summary for the next CBOC meeting. I'm just interested in more data on— that's for me. Yeah, that, that is kind of my situation. Let me get back to you. Is that okay? Okay. Uh, well, how about this? We can vote to approve the subcommittee. If there's no membership, then obviously it won't do anything. If you guys decide you can spend an hour or two on it once we get the materials from Eric and Rick, then we can, we can meet. How does that sound? So, uh, I'd like to motion to form an ad hoc subcommittee on the lighting retrofit project for the research. Second? I second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay, so ad hoc subcommittee is formed. I'm happy to be on it. Let me know if you would also like to participate. I'll dialogue with Rick, and maybe you can be the conduit through which the stuff is collected, Rick. Okay. All right, with that then, um, let's move to 5-03. So this is a topic, once again, we talked about it already tonight. The SAGE Professional Services Contract came up on the no-bid list last time. We asked why, and so we'd like to learn more about that. And I think, Will, is this on you?"},{"start":6444744,"end":6514548,"speaker":"H","text":"Yeah, I can speak to that one. So at the start of the Measure T bond program, one of the first steps is Putting out RFQPs for the different consultants that are going to support the program. The, the first 2 that usually go out are the architect and the program construction manager, followed by any other consultants that would apply to the program. So we put out RFQPs for CEQA consultants, your California environmental consultant. Uh, geotech consultants, topo, civil surveying consultants, um, and energy consultants were one of the, uh, consultant RFQPs that we put out. Um, so we did go through a full competitive process, uh, received qualifications and proposals from multiple energy consultants, uh, did a full evaluation process, an interview process and a selection process for the energy consultant that would be handling all of the Measure T bond program."},{"start":6514548,"end":6516314,"speaker":"A","text":"And what year was this roughly?"},{"start":6516314,"end":6574767,"speaker":"H","text":"I'd say like 2017. And so Sage was selected as the district's energy consultant and has supported, you know, multiple energy projects throughout the Measure T bond program. So this would be the— what we would believe would be the final project that, that consultant would be handling, similar to how our firm has handled all of the projects through the entire Measure T bond program. And so that, like, each project that the district board approves this, uh, you know, to go into construction. If what you guys are mentioning, like, recompeting it, that would be as if they recompeted, like, our program and construction management services for every project throughout the program."},{"start":6578460,"end":6587389,"speaker":"B","text":"My only question would be, is that energy consultant data shared with the next one for Measure S? Can you— do they get to share their data with, uh, the next bond fund?"},{"start":6588240,"end":6589156,"speaker":"H","text":"Absolutely. Okay."},{"start":6589301,"end":6591823,"speaker":"E","text":"I mean, yeah, uh, who owns, who owns the information?"},{"start":6591872,"end":6625267,"speaker":"H","text":"The district owns the information. Got it. Um, all of the reports have been shared with the district. We have them on, uh, our server, and then we also provided paper and digital copies that are in the facilities, um, MOT vault. Um, and we've been coordinating very closely with Ben Pelt, you know, QKA, on the coordination between different, you know, energy projects and would happily share any information desired. Yeah."},{"start":6625267,"end":6645661,"speaker":"A","text":"This was an independently scoped project, right? The actual scope is attached to the board resolution that approved this. It's an independent consulting agreement for professional services, and then it goes through and describes this $540,000 project that you're doing with Sage, right? It—"},{"start":6646255,"end":6715324,"speaker":"H","text":"so it was not— so we worked through the procurement process with Sage. We used the energy code 4217 and released an RFP that had basic parameters and specifications of the, of the project. And then the contractors proposed on that. So it was not a full design— it wasn't a full design process. It was, you know, an initial, like, an initial specification and, you know, quantified expectations of the project. The— under Energy Code 4217, the design-build contractors are able to actually propose, you know, alternates, adjustments and things like that that can potentially add value to the project. And so that was part of the evaluation process. As Eric mentioned, this is different than having an architect do a full design, having a set design that's approved by the state, and then bidding that out to different contractors that have to meet the criteria exactly. That makes sense."},{"start":6715324,"end":6730797,"speaker":"A","text":"You may have confused me even more, but specifically the agreement between the district and Sage. Yes. For their services. Yes. This is more consultant— energy consulting services. Yeah. There's an agreement."},{"start":6730941,"end":6732979,"speaker":"H","text":"There's a procurement implementation."},{"start":6733973,"end":6737743,"speaker":"A","text":"And that's what they're going to do. Basically, they're going to manage that."},{"start":6738160,"end":6740599,"speaker":"H","text":"But yeah, they're going to— having them do the—"},{"start":6740807,"end":6750048,"speaker":"A","text":"their— those services, that was not competitively bid, correct? Sage versus somebody else to do the $540,000 of work that Sage is doing."},{"start":6751477,"end":6767807,"speaker":"H","text":"No, it was not. They were selected as the district's energy consultant for the entire program. It was competitively bid out— —at the start of the program. Yes. And that was when we selected them as the energy consultant for the full Measure T program."},{"start":6767807,"end":6771612,"speaker":"B","text":"Is this their total amount then? Or is this just—"},{"start":6771612,"end":6810292,"speaker":"H","text":"No, this is— this is— this project— they've supported other projects as well. And that's the same process, Carl, that was followed for all of the professional services consultants, you know, that have been involved in this program. And the standard process for, you know, bond programs is, you know, you do, do your RFQP process at the start of the bond program. You select your, you know, architects, program managers, construction managers, and another, and another list of consultants that may apply to your projects, and then you work with those same consultants throughout the program."},{"start":6810933,"end":6817488,"speaker":"B","text":"Um, you know, they already have a familiarity with the project and, like, and the backgrounds."},{"start":6817841,"end":6824380,"speaker":"A","text":"And so if you were to bid this out to another group, they would have to start from scratch."},{"start":6824508,"end":6841261,"speaker":"H","text":"Um, yeah, in terms of being fully engaged with PG&E, understanding, you know, the district's energy usage, you know, modeling all that, you know, that— yes, he's— he is correct on that front. Sure."},{"start":6841422,"end":6865167,"speaker":"A","text":"I mean, you could say that about any contractor that knows the ins and outs, that they would be the preferred choice because they know the ins and outs, but it doesn't mean it's the most expedient spend of taxpayer money. But what I'm hearing is you're, you're able to use the energy code exempt, the 4217 that we were just arguing for the lighting retrofit."},{"start":6865361,"end":6888959,"speaker":"H","text":"We did not use energy code 4217 to select Sage as the contractor. We, we used— worked with Sage to help develop the RFP that was released publicly which allowed the design-build contractor that was going to do the design and build of the, of the solar system—"},{"start":6888959,"end":6889457,"speaker":"A","text":"I'm with you."},{"start":6889457,"end":6891640,"speaker":"H","text":"—to, to provide a proposal."},{"start":6891640,"end":6900744,"speaker":"A","text":"So what exemption did you use? Because Eric presented earlier that above $90,000 professional services must be put out for proposals. He did."},{"start":6900920,"end":6906604,"speaker":"E","text":"I'm sorry. Well, he did put out an RFP. He put out an RFP to establish the pool. That's what he's saying. Yes."},{"start":6906604,"end":6921129,"speaker":"A","text":"In 2017. That's correct. Yes. But then come 2024 and you have this project, you went to Sage only, they said $540,000, you agreed to it. There was no competitive bidding of that."},{"start":6921546,"end":6927589,"speaker":"H","text":"That's correct. Because they had already been selected as the district's energy consultant for the entire program."},{"start":6927798,"end":6929673,"speaker":"A","text":"They're an approved vendor. They're on the list."},{"start":6929721,"end":6932831,"speaker":"B","text":"They've already done the work. So this isn't an add-on for that project."},{"start":6933232,"end":6943430,"speaker":"A","text":"But that's— that was not one of the reasons that Eric just explained to us where— how you could get an exemption from bidding. What exemption are you referring to? Professional services."},{"start":6943494,"end":6946132,"speaker":"H","text":"The district does not have to bid out professional services."},{"start":6946229,"end":6946827,"speaker":"E","text":"Precisely. Yeah."},{"start":6946973,"end":6949400,"speaker":"A","text":"Okay, I thought you said above $90,000 or $92,000."},{"start":6949940,"end":6972446,"speaker":"E","text":"But $90,000, you have to put out an RFP, which he did, and that— or he got pricing and he got— he got hourly rates and— and qualifications from the, uh, from the professional service providers. They provided that 7 years prior. That— yeah, I'm not commenting on the timing, but I'm— that was my question earlier when you were talking."},{"start":6972511,"end":6979034,"speaker":"A","text":"Is there some, you know, time exemption? Because 7 years later, we're still full prep working off that same RFP."},{"start":6979163,"end":7097204,"speaker":"H","text":"Just like our, our program and construction management team, we're professional services. The district engaged with us and selected us for their Measure T bond program. And so we are, we are finishing the, you know, final project of the Measure T bond program, and they did not, you know, go out and recompete our last few projects. But could have. Well, yeah, the district can do, you know, what they want. You know, of course the contract terms come into play, and that discussion came up earlier. But, um, I mean, there's a— there's another aspect to this that came up regarding timing. We, we are against the clock to maintain the district's, uh, grandfathering into the PG&E Net Energy Metering 2.0, uh, tariff that's going to be extremely financially advantageous to the district. And, um, as someone mentioned earlier, Sage um, is already fully integrated with the district, um, fully integrated with PG&E. They actually handled the district's interconnection applications, which grandfathered them into the Net Energy Metering 2.0 program 3 or 4 years ago with our support. Um, had already done, you know, feasibility and modeling 2 or 3 years back, so we were, we were against the clock to engage with an energy consultant, get the RFP out for the design-build contractor, and execute the project. Um, I'm not using that as our justification because we don't need to, because we went through the full RCSD process at the start of the bond program, selected the energy consultant. That, that I just mentioned would have made it a necessity to just, you know, proceed immediately. Um, but I'm not even using that as a justification for it. That's just an extra layer."},{"start":7097204,"end":7110973,"speaker":"D","text":"Just maybe semantics, but like, this sounds a lot closer to like something that I consider a task order on some, like, a broader agreement that you already had with them. Is that fairly accurate?"},{"start":7110973,"end":7128535,"speaker":"H","text":"I mean, some, at some, in some cases there will be like a Master Agreement and supplemental agreements. You know, certain attorneys will do it that way. Okay, which, which is how you're viewing it? Yeah, like you have a master agreement and then task orders throughout like a program or an execution."},{"start":7129546,"end":7137200,"speaker":"D","text":"So what was that? What happened? Or, um, was it a new contract? A new contract each time? With— we did new contracts each time."},{"start":7137537,"end":7138115,"speaker":"H","text":"Okay. Yep."},{"start":7140522,"end":7143956,"speaker":"F","text":"The $540,000, that was included the full construction price as well?"},{"start":7144759,"end":7155844,"speaker":"H","text":"No, the $540,000 is just the professional service. It's a consultant price. Yeah, the design-build contractor, uh, don't quote me on it, it was like, like around $10 or $11 million."},{"start":7156325,"end":7158619,"speaker":"F","text":"Okay, and it's the same contractor that they had used previously?"},{"start":7159614,"end":7216440,"speaker":"H","text":"No, different. No, we— no, we recompeted the design-build. So an RFP was put out? This is just an RFP design? RFP was— a new RFP was put out to competitively, uh, competitively bid the design-build contractor that was going to build the solar system. That was what I mentioned earlier. We got 8, 8 proposals, went with the lowest one, spent— yeah, about a month going through procurement, uncovered issues, switched to the next lowest, and then got through the full procurement process and engaged as quickly as we could so that we could get into design so that we can ensure that we're meeting that NEM 2.0 deadline. That's going to allow the district to recoup like $25 million over the life of the system. If we don't meet that deadline, they get switched back to the net billing tariff, and it could be a third of that saving. So we are, we're really against the clock."},{"start":7216440,"end":7225255,"speaker":"F","text":"And was Sage's fee, $540,000, comparable to their original scope and fee prior?"},{"start":7225255,"end":7225592,"speaker":"E","text":"Yes."},{"start":7225736,"end":7234949,"speaker":"H","text":"Yeah, their, the original project that we were looking at was the exact the exact project just on 4 school sites rather than 10."},{"start":7234949,"end":7240981,"speaker":"F","text":"Okay, so you could extrapolate the $540,000 based on that original pricing that was agreed upon?"},{"start":7240981,"end":7258350,"speaker":"H","text":"Uh, not necess— I mean, not necessarily. I mean, they were selected as the district's energy consultant, so we could nego— you know, we could negotiate with them on pricing for any additional projects throughout about the program."},{"start":7258756,"end":7279906,"speaker":"A","text":"Yeah. Were they considered to do the lighting retrofit assessment since they were already the preferred district vendor with all of this great knowledge of all the facilities and having been fully vetted? Eric, were they asked to bid on the design and assessment of the— and management of the lighting retrofit project?"},{"start":7281545,"end":7302626,"speaker":"E","text":"They— uh, Sage was not. No, they They were not— they're not— we're talking about two different scopes of work here. Sage, for them, provided design docs for, for soft plan and for the lighting scope. We did— that we deliver that direct with the design-build. So we want— it's a contractor and a designer. Sage is just a designer."},{"start":7302626,"end":7314469,"speaker":"A","text":"So could you have gone to Sage and gotten a design for the lighting retrofit project and then bid out the construction just as Will did for the solar project?"},{"start":7317467,"end":7321186,"speaker":"E","text":"Could, could I— I, I'd have to check and see if Sage provides that service."},{"start":7321234,"end":7331669,"speaker":"A","text":"I, I don't know. Yeah, I mean, we just heard all this talk about how Sage is the preferred vendor, fully vetted, knows the district inside and out, the energy usage across the district."},{"start":7331749,"end":7338305,"speaker":"E","text":"So yeah, but it's a different— lighting and solar are, are different. Like, HVAC is going to be different too."},{"start":7339170,"end":7343321,"speaker":"F","text":"And if timing was a factor to get it done quick, design-build's the way to go. Instead of design-build-build."},{"start":7345517,"end":7348770,"speaker":"A","text":"But solar was not design-build, which was—"},{"start":7349266,"end":7354907,"speaker":"E","text":"yes, yes, it is. Sage designed— well, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm speaking for you now, I'm sorry. Yeah, they did."},{"start":7354955,"end":7369923,"speaker":"H","text":"Well, they helped, they helped to draft the— they did, but they didn't do the full design. They did do the design parameters, um, but the— we are currently working on the design with the contractor, the design-build contractor that was selected. Through the RFP process."},{"start":7374048,"end":7401497,"speaker":"A","text":"Any other discussion on 5— what's printed as 53? Any public comment on 53? Okay, moving on to 54. This was an item I believe, Janet, you brought forward 2 meetings ago, and I failed to agendaize— agendaize it last meeting. There was some concern. Maybe you could articulate the background for us."},{"start":7401961,"end":7482859,"speaker":"C","text":"So originally, thank you, thank you for putting it on. Originally, my concern was that the report read to me that it had to do with monies being spent, district, district monies being spent, if they were being correctly spent. The grand jury went on to articulate all different entities, and the RCSD School District's one of the ones listed. My concern was, is this something that we need to be concerned with? After having reviewed it myself again for probably the third time, um, I have determined that it is not within our purview. Um, it is not something that I think should be here. I appreciate the fact that Carl did go ahead and put it on the agenda anyway just to satisfy the fact that I had requested it. But I really, after going over it several times now, I don't see where it's anything that this committee has anything to question on, nor do I see after reading it that there were any issues within that report that we even need to be concerned about as a community. So, um, I therefore would say that this isn't a topic we even need to discuss tonight, and I appreciate the fact that it's there, but I'm good with it. And if you want to read a very kind of boring document, took me 3 or 4 times to read it, go ahead and read it. But clearly, um, your district is good here."},{"start":7483003,"end":7513085,"speaker":"A","text":"So thank you. Yeah, thank you. Rick, is there anything you want to add on the topic? Um, yeah, I'll just briefly say we, we did present a letter to the grand jury to the board for approval on September 11th. Um, it's available for public review. Okay, great. Any public comment on 5.4? All right, well, I mean, we did discuss it. It's on the agenda, discussed and closed. They approved the agenda. It would be—"},{"start":7515123,"end":7531261,"speaker":"C","text":"I would have actually— to that question, I would have had it removed early on except for I felt it deserved a comment. Closed out now. It's closed out. Yes, exactly. If you don't comment on something on the agenda, then there is an assumption that why didn't, why didn't we have something said? So yes. Okay."},{"start":7531806,"end":7547723,"speaker":"A","text":"Thanks, Janet. 5.5, receive and discuss Measure S progress, including update on Facilities Master Plan process and FAST Start projects. Obviously, we've talked a lot about one of the FAST Start projects tonight, but there's other activity going on, I'm sure."},{"start":7547723,"end":7624289,"speaker":"J","text":"Yeah. So I'll take this one. I'm happy to give a Measure S update. Oh, little delay there. So I'll give a Facilities Master Plan update. We'll talk a little bit about the HVAC project and then the lighting, which I know we've already talked at length about, but I'll give a progress update. Uh, so as far as the Facilities Master Plan, this is the schedule that the— our architect QKA has presented to the board in December and also at every site committee meeting. So where we are in this process is we have just completed our second round of site committee meetings with every site. We are updating the draft site plans following the comments from those meetings. Our next steps are to schedule community meetings to get larger community input. We are now engaging the cost estimator and we are still on schedule to present a draft to the board in the spring. So we're moving right along. I think we're making good progress, but still a lot of work to do on the facilities Master Facilities Plan."},{"start":7624289,"end":7636205,"speaker":"A","text":"And I'll— I think the original— Go back to the request. —schedule presented to the board was to finish it in January, the month we're in. Can you just describe some of the things that have pushed out the timing?"},{"start":7636205,"end":7658094,"speaker":"J","text":"Uh, we have had some trouble scheduling the site committee meetings, um, and a little bit of participation, um, so— and we wanted to engage our sites and the community, so we decided to prioritize that in scheduling those meetings, and that's what's pushed the schedule a little bit."},{"start":7658094,"end":7663343,"speaker":"A","text":"Which is a good reason, right? Want to make sure everyone's getting their input. Agree."},{"start":7664853,"end":7730006,"speaker":"J","text":"So moving on to HVAC. So as Eric mentioned earlier, the board authorized us to move forward with design of upgrading HVAC at 4 campuses for this first round. Those are Adelante Selby, Hoover, Roosevelt, and Taft. QK Architects was approved by the board in November to start the design, so that is being fast-tracked. They're about 75 to 80% complete with the design as of today. We are scheduled to submit to DSA next month in February, and we are also working on early procurement equipment. Um, the current strategy would be through, uh, Omnia or CMAS, as Eric mentioned earlier, for, uh, to expedite the delivery of those units in order to install them this summer."},{"start":7730711,"end":7734300,"speaker":"E","text":"That's the purchase of the units only, not the installation. Correct. Material only."},{"start":7734396,"end":7749222,"speaker":"A","text":"Clarify, because it's obviously a hot topic tonight. Uh, so the board approved the architect's design work. Correct. Separately, you'll procure materials, and you can do that under the exemption you talked about. But the actual construction work, will that be bid?"},{"start":7749222,"end":7758634,"speaker":"J","text":"The current strategy is to do an RFQ, RFP, request for qualifications and proposals for a lease-leaseback contractor."},{"start":7758634,"end":7761830,"speaker":"A","text":"For the what contract?"},{"start":7761830,"end":7782070,"speaker":"J","text":"For a lease-leaseback contract. It's one of the procurement methods that Eric also mentioned earlier. Where you, you do a request for qualifications to get them qualified, and then a proposal. As so, that's just one of the criteria for selection is price, but also qualification."},{"start":7782230,"end":7784715,"speaker":"E","text":"And then they do bid out the work to their subcontractors."},{"start":7786734,"end":7791688,"speaker":"A","text":"So would there be— just to clarify, would there be multiple competing contractors for the work?"},{"start":7791768,"end":7796308,"speaker":"E","text":"Correct. We would expect to get, get several people submitting on these projects."},{"start":7796308,"end":7802570,"speaker":"A","text":"Okay, and do you foresee one contractor doing all of this, or the work would be divvied up amongst several?"},{"start":7802570,"end":7821868,"speaker":"E","text":"No, the goal is to get one contractor to do all four. We'll write the RFP in a way that, um, you could select one or multiple for each site, just, just in case that there's a reason to select multiple for each site. But from a coordination perspective, on a project this large that is tightly coordinated, MEP systems we would want to try to get one contractor."},{"start":7824597,"end":7831627,"speaker":"F","text":"Just curious, is a lease-leaseback contract like a lump sum, or is it more like a GMP where you can reconcile the end?"},{"start":7831884,"end":7833923,"speaker":"E","text":"It's a guaranteed maximum price. You're exactly right."},{"start":7833971,"end":7834228,"speaker":"F","text":"Thank you."},{"start":7834228,"end":7850505,"speaker":"A","text":"Has the district provided any guidance on contractor selection in terms of the location? Uh, of— is there a preference for locally based contractors? Has any direction been given on that?"},{"start":7856549,"end":7876625,"speaker":"E","text":"There'll be a best value methodology, and you could definitely include— give some extra points for, for location. For sure, I would— if the district asked for my recommendation, it would definitely be part of the selection process. It would not be the highest part of the selection process, but it would definitely be a point— part of the point system."},{"start":7876690,"end":7881820,"speaker":"F","text":"System. Could you also include, like, DEI, like, minority-owned business, women-owned business?"},{"start":7883936,"end":7904416,"speaker":"E","text":"Yeah, yeah, there are some, uh, uh, there is some, uh, some of the, uh, DEI is already worked into state law. So disabled veterans enterprise, there, there's, there's various different ones, and I don't remember them off the top of my head, so I apologize. But those all, all of those goals are worked into to the, the contract, the legal—"},{"start":7904416,"end":7906248,"speaker":"F","text":"The RCSD. Yeah, and they—"},{"start":7906473,"end":7907855,"speaker":"E","text":"which is part of the RP. Cool."},{"start":7907855,"end":7923365,"speaker":"A","text":"It just reminded me of one action item from the earlier topic on the retrofit. I just wanted to make sure it didn't get lost, Eric. I think you were going to check into the Southland Industries union versus non-union labor. So I just wanted to remind you of that follow-up action."},{"start":7923365,"end":7935603,"speaker":"E","text":"Yeah, absolutely. I'm going to get you some more information. I just went to their website and they've got the NECA stamp on their website. It, which usually means that they're union. But I will, I will definitely do, do a little bit of research and bring you something formal."},{"start":7935956,"end":7938471,"speaker":"A","text":"Thank you. Okay, sorry, back to you."},{"start":7938536,"end":7978489,"speaker":"J","text":"No problem. And then moving on to lighting. So we mentioned this earlier, uh, Southland Industries was approved in November. Um, all submittals have been approved, so they're procuring equipment right now. We are coordinating, uh, the exact schedule of campuses and how we'll implement, but they are anticipated to start in the spring. So, so that's moving forward. Uh, like I mentioned earlier, during the school day or during the school year, they will work after hours, and then during breaks, uh, like summer break, they'll work regular work hours."},{"start":7978489,"end":7984399,"speaker":"A","text":"You might have said this earlier, but what do you expect the duration of the total project to be?"},{"start":7986108,"end":7993058,"speaker":"J","text":"Oh, um, off top of my head, I, I think it's a little more than a year. I think it ends in 2026."},{"start":7993621,"end":7996417,"speaker":"E","text":"Yeah. Yes."},{"start":7997382,"end":8004016,"speaker":"B","text":"Was the count per bulb, for example, or was it per— like, this has 3. Picture. It's picture."},{"start":8004307,"end":8005709,"speaker":"A","text":"Okay, thank you. Thank you."},{"start":8005774,"end":8006822,"speaker":"B","text":"Sorry, I didn't turn my mic on."},{"start":8006967,"end":8009030,"speaker":"E","text":"That's a picture count. That's okay. Thanks."},{"start":8011808,"end":8015806,"speaker":"J","text":"And that was the end of my update. Great."},{"start":8015886,"end":8110787,"speaker":"A","text":"Thank you very much. Any questions on Measure S projects or the Facilities Master Plan schedule? Public comment? Nope. Okay. That is 5— where were we? 5— 5, sorry, that was 5.5. 5.6 we moved earlier. Thank you, Will. We let you go early, I can see. So that takes us into 5.7, which is reviewing bond activity for the July through September period. And we have an attachment for 5.7.1. And does anyone have any questions on 5.7.1, the expenses for Measure S or Measure Measure T. There were spreadsheets were provided as attachments for S and for T. Good. Okay, 571, check. 572, contractor change orders during the period, there were none, correct? For items 572, 3, 4, and 5, there's nothing. Okay, perfect. So that skips us ahead then to 5.8 and the financial revenue and expenditures update. Thank you for your patience, by the way, and waiting through all of that to get to your piece."},{"start":8110787,"end":8135471,"speaker":"I","text":"For reports, the first First one is the fund income and expense summary as of September 30th, 2024. This is— this report presents the actual expenditures until September 30th, and as you can see, I added—"},{"start":8135471,"end":8151383,"speaker":"A","text":"excuse me just for one sec. Are you able to share your screen? Maybe I can I don't know if we've done this in the past, but I think for the people who might watch this on video later, if you could actually be sharing your, your, the document as you talk to it, that would be awesome. Thank you."},{"start":8151383,"end":8190045,"speaker":"I","text":"So we included object code 8662 to show the fair value market adjustments for Measure T to match this spreadsheet to the financial and performance audit reports. To sum up, the actual expenditures until September 30th were $59,903 for Fund 21, and the total of all funds is— for all years is $213.5 million."},{"start":8196258,"end":8196740,"speaker":"A","text":"Yep. Okay."},{"start":8197125,"end":8198793,"speaker":"I","text":"Do you have any questions?"},{"start":8200894,"end":8201889,"speaker":"A","text":"Good. All right."},{"start":8201953,"end":8292023,"speaker":"I","text":"Thank you. The next report is the 5.8B Measure T Board report, which is the, the usual report to support the spreadsheet. And you can see the year-to-date actuals, 59 $1,903 for, uh, Fund 21. Yep. Next one is 5.8C. It is the, uh, accountability system report, the consolidated projected cost report, cost report showing the projects on the left side, the budgets and expenditures are the— in the columns. Um, both systems accountability and, um, financial audit, uh, are reconciled as September 30, 2024. And, um, you can see the total expenditures matching also the spreadsheet, $213.5 million. Um, and the budget is $15,047,458. You can see it on page 9. Mhm. And, uh, this includes the first quarter interest revenue. Um, it's $14,166. What—"},{"start":8292039,"end":8297757,"speaker":"A","text":"I'm sorry, I might have missed this, but what's the, the balance now in Measure T, the remaining unspent?"},{"start":8303113,"end":8311310,"speaker":"I","text":"So after the calculations, and it's about $737,000."},{"start":8313484,"end":8318486,"speaker":"A","text":"Okay, and the solar project has already been allocated in here that Will talked about?"},{"start":8319313,"end":8325392,"speaker":"I","text":"These are the actuals. Yeah, it doesn't have the income includes."},{"start":8325392,"end":8333654,"speaker":"A","text":"Okay, but so what's the total balance, unspent balance of Measure T funds, I guess, is my question."},{"start":8333654,"end":8337521,"speaker":"I","text":"Up to including compresses as well."},{"start":8337521,"end":8348286,"speaker":"H","text":"There's, there's also money from the state facilities, construction. It's not a match program. It's— The, yeah, the state fund— state funding program."},{"start":8348286,"end":8388334,"speaker":"A","text":"State funding program for construction. Uh, that we're holding in a different fund right now that'll be transferred in for the cost of, uh, the solar project. It was money derived from projects that were completed through Measure T, submitted for, uh, majority reimbursement, I would say, on some of the projects, uh, that were funded to the district that's paying for the solar project. So it's the extension or the, uh, opportunities to get more money from the projects that we spend money on. So the actual bond proceeds have essentially been expended, even $700,000. But you've got some rebates and other things you're transferring in that are going to fund the $10 or $12 million you mentioned. Yeah. Construction costs."},{"start":8388334,"end":8416634,"speaker":"H","text":"I was going to mention that we just moved every last penny from all of the, you know, board reserves. Reserves. The bond program reserve had already been depleted. So the board reserve was the final fund that had a balance remaining. We started by moving that into the solar project. And then supplemented the remaining solar— the remainder of the solar project budget with state funds that were reimbursement to our Measure T project."},{"start":8416634,"end":8422976,"speaker":"A","text":"So when solar wraps up, and it has to be done by April of next year, you said Measure T will be done."},{"start":8423024,"end":8423731,"speaker":"H","text":"Measure T is done."},{"start":8426717,"end":8427456,"speaker":"A","text":"Got it. Thank you."},{"start":8430426,"end":8458421,"speaker":"I","text":"The next report is 5.8D, Sources and Budgets report, showing detailed budget updates. This report is from November 25th, 2024, so it is not including that $13 million update. On the next CBOC meeting, it will. Okay. And you You can see the $215 million budget here."},{"start":8462994,"end":8480910,"speaker":"A","text":"Any questions? How are we— now that we're running S&T, how are we accounting for the district employee expense for bond management? Is it split between the two, Rick? Is it in one or the other, or— Is it under Measure S? It's all under Measure S now?"},{"start":8481040,"end":8486343,"speaker":"I","text":"This is only for the accountant. We are paying only for the accountant."},{"start":8486520,"end":8492529,"speaker":"A","text":"Okay, but that line item that used to say district salaries and benefits is now under S, correct? Okay."},{"start":8494996,"end":8511774,"speaker":"I","text":"The next report is Measure S board report. I wanted to show you, um, the expenditures year to date as of September 30, 2024. It's $504,315."},{"start":8511774,"end":8535787,"speaker":"A","text":"Which, which attachment are you on? You lost me. Sorry. Is this, uh, Measure S report 5.8E? 8E. Okay. Okay, so that actually, that's where the salaries and benefits is showing up now. Got it."},{"start":8538098,"end":8561105,"speaker":"I","text":"Okay, thank you. Next one, it's the last one. This is from Keystone Solutions. The 5.8F, it's a transaction by fiscal year report showing the object codes on the left side, and then all the expenditures since 2022. The total expenditures for Measure S so far is $2.2 million."},{"start":8568991,"end":8589935,"speaker":"A","text":"What was— is the— in '22-'23, the $454,000, was that the bond floating expense? If I recall, the issuance expense, is, is that was the only expense in that fiscal year? And then in the previous— in last fiscal year, the expense was primarily just the program management. Is that right?"},{"start":8590498,"end":8590642,"speaker":"G","text":"Yes."},{"start":8591462,"end":8591638,"speaker":"A","text":"Okay."},{"start":8594033,"end":8599207,"speaker":"F","text":"What are those construction expenditures in '23-'24 and '24-'25?"},{"start":8600701,"end":8608349,"speaker":"I","text":"It's a very small amount. It's the mobile modular, uh, the bond director's office."},{"start":8612929,"end":8643598,"speaker":"A","text":"Uh, so grant planning We're just trying to— this is a new report we haven't seen before, right? So we're trying to figure out the grand totals on the bottom, which are B, C, and then the grand total, because under C subtotal construction says $1.2 million, but that's not actually the subtotal of construction, is it? Or— oh, okay, so you've put program management under construction. Is that right? Because it's showing $1.2 million last year in construction, but that's actually—"},{"start":8643598,"end":8660695,"speaker":"I","text":"That's how it shows. Because I don't choose how to. So this is how it breaks down. I just, I just put at the cutoff date, September 30th, and this specific report, it will break down everything this way."},{"start":8660695,"end":8676497,"speaker":"A","text":"Okay, but the 2 categories you're showing here are planning and construction, and the $1.2 million, which is the big expense from last year, is listed as program management 6218. And it's under construction, not planning, and that, that's intentional."},{"start":8676497,"end":8687913,"speaker":"E","text":"Yeah, in the state funding— when under the state funding categories, program and construction management falls under construction, architecture falls under planning. So they're breaking it up on—"},{"start":8687913,"end":8689628,"speaker":"A","text":"We learn something new every time."},{"start":8689628,"end":8692563,"speaker":"E","text":"They're breaking it up based on the state funding categories."},{"start":8692563,"end":8698351,"speaker":"A","text":"Okay, just to be clear, there was no construction in the last fiscal year. That's the program management costs."},{"start":8698351,"end":8700873,"speaker":"E","text":"Architects, program management, and engineers. So far."},{"start":8701018,"end":8706467,"speaker":"I","text":"Yes, sir. Includes key analytics, the program, and the—"},{"start":8706580,"end":8787054,"speaker":"A","text":"yes, got it. Okay, thank you. Super helpful. Anything else on— to share? That would be all. All right, great. Thank you. Any questions on 5.8? Any public comment on 5.8? Okay, uh, 5.9, um, one of our recurring topics is how do we get the committee up to its full membership, uh, requirements, because we're below the state-mandated requirement of 7 members. We don't have a taxpayer representative, we don't have a business representative. So, um, once again, Dr. Baker, Rick, like, can you illuminate for us what your tactics are to try and get the committee up to its full required size? So we're still doing reach out. We do believe that we have one person who is going to come on board, uh, as a community member. Uh, we're still checking to see if he would fill any other role, uh, and we should know within the next couple of weeks on that that we would take to the board. Hopefully prior to the next meeting. And then if we can still find anyone else, we will go through the same process."},{"start":8787214,"end":8794353,"speaker":"E","text":"But to this point, we're not having luck with conversations of people who seemingly may be interested but choose not to apply."},{"start":8795701,"end":8805005,"speaker":"F","text":"Did we discuss advertising it at any of the town halls for the facilities Master Facilities Plan? Yeah, we will do that during— okay, so that's still to come, and that might be great."},{"start":8808469,"end":8865542,"speaker":"A","text":"I think there was a recommendation also at the last meeting to advertise it in, like, site council meetings, ask to socialize it. I don't know, we could brainstorm a lot of— there are a lot of different places parents are gathering who might be qualified or interested and but don't know about it. Prop 39. Yeah, so ask others, are you, uh, and North Star, where— but you're North Star, so I think that's good. I would say find Kennedy and someone— and John, I mean, you do your superintendent updates. The next one that you do that talks about bond spending, if you could put something in there saying, hey, we're looking for, for people to help with oversight. Yeah, I asked at the chamber because I went to a chamber. Do the mailer again."},{"start":8865798,"end":8867340,"speaker":"B","text":"That's how you got me. The mailer was cute."},{"start":8867677,"end":9064260,"speaker":"A","text":"Yeah, me too. Mailer was very charming. Made me feel like a rock star. And you are a rock star. My dreams, Carl. Um, okay, uh 5:10, then future meeting dates. Olivia, can you remind me when our next date is? We have not selected a date for this calendar year. Okay, do we want to attempt to do that now while everyone is here? So, well, we, we do need— so our next meeting will cover the October, November, December fiscal period. So we can essentially have, as soon as the district is ready we can have that meeting. So it could be as early as next month in February, and then the next fiscal period ends March. So we would probably meet again in April. So like the month after the end of the fiscal period is generally probably what we should be shooting for, because then Rick and team have time to report out on the previous quarter. So at a February date, I'm just looking at the week of the 24th because it's after the, the school break, President's Day week break. So you guys have the district calendar, I'm sure, in front of you. But would one of those days, 25, 26, work? Yeah, February 20th. Okay, that's the only one. 25th, Tuesday. Yeah, any objections on the committee? February? Yep. So this is almost like our catch-up meeting. This is kind of a catch-up meeting because this meeting that we're at now should have happened in November. Yeah, so we'll be back on schedule. Okay, why don't we tentatively say the— so the next meeting would be 2/25, 6 PM, and then we would look at April. How, how long do you need after the close of the period, Rick, to be ready? I think if we could look at Okay, first week of spring break happens. How about first week of May, the 7th of, of May? Just throwing out. Is there a board meeting on that Wednesday the 7th of— you have the calendar? It's not my calendar. Sorry, what? 14th. Did we say 25th or 26th? 25th. When is, when is the midwinter— that's a board meeting on the 26th. Sorry, when is the midwinter break? The— it's which one, the spring break you mean, or the April break, or the February break? The February— that's the week of the 17th, so it'd be the week before our meeting date. Okay, just making sure. I knew there was—"},{"start":9064536,"end":9065023,"speaker":"D","text":"I knew it was somewhere."},{"start":9065267,"end":9071080,"speaker":"A","text":"Yeah. I think it does. I think it does."},{"start":9073024,"end":9074212,"speaker":"H","text":"But a good, good question."},{"start":9074485,"end":9077023,"speaker":"A","text":"Okay, so May, uh, 7th."},{"start":9077489,"end":9078244,"speaker":"C","text":"Can say yes."},{"start":9078806,"end":9263197,"speaker":"A","text":"I, I'll say yes right now, but I'll know, I'll know in the next few weeks if I— Okay, I mean, would the 6th be— it could be the 6th, 7th, or 8th. It's just that whole week. Okay, okay, sure. I, I think we're just putting a stake in the ground here to have something to— so 5/7 would be the next one, and then the period would be, uh, March, April, May— no, April, May, June. So it would be July or first week of August. Okay. I know the summer is always hard for people, but why don't we just put— can we put a stake in the ground and say either the 5th, 6th, or 7th of August? And of course we need— um, I would prefer to go before school starts. I feel like everything goes it was kind of— well, the 5th, 6th, 7th would be the week before school starts. So this— um, okay, let's target the, uh, 8/6. Um, and then the final— no, wait, would that be— okay, so then we would be covering the July, August, September, so we would want a November date again, correct? Rick, um, to cover the first quarter. I think the meeting, uh, was originally scheduled for December 5th last time, and we had to push that, uh, because October 31st to, uh, the second week of November is a pretty tight runway with Thanksgiving in there as well. But isn't it September 30th that the period ends, or Yeah, July, August, September. So it ends September 3rd. So you'd have a whole month of October, and then we would meet— I'm suggesting the 5th of November, just to put something on the— Yeah, yeah, yeah. So at each meeting, we'll review the next few meetings to make sure where everyone's on track. How does that sound? So these— I was suggesting 11/5. So just to recap, February 25th, it catches us up on the second quarter, then May 7th, August 6th, November 5th. 765. Great. We're losing a day each time we meet. All right, any agenda topics that That's the second part of 5:10. Any agenda topics that anyone wants to add on for the next meeting besides our regular, regularly scheduled items? Just the reports we talked about, if it's possible."},{"start":9263197,"end":9265122,"speaker":"B","text":"Yeah. That's—"},{"start":9265122,"end":9305114,"speaker":"A","text":"So that would be a— if this ad hoc subcommittee gets membership, they can process all that and come back to that next meeting with the information you've asked How's that sound? Okay, I think that with that noted, then we're ready to adjourn the meeting. Is there anything before we adjourn from anybody? Okay, motion to adjourn. I think Jen was in first. Second. Second. Sorry, Carl, but you can vote. All right. Aye. All in favor, aye. Okay, meeting is adjourned. Thank you, everyone. Anyone?"}]}