January 22, 2025 Minutes
Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee (CBOC)
January 22, 2025
Minutes of the Meeting
Location: Members of the Committee attended in-person at the District Office.
Present: Janet Borgens, Jennifer Givens, Carl Landers, Karl Metz, and Jitpal Sahai
Absent: Jacqueline Rodriguez Luna
Others present: Olivia Acosta, Supt. John Baker, Ed.D., CBO Rick Edson, Nick Olsen (VPCS) Will Robertson (Cumming Group), Erika Szallos, Erick Van Pelt (VPCS)
1.0 Call to Order
1.1 Roll Call
Meeting was called to order at 6:01 pm. Roll call was taken and quorum was established
1.2 Welcome – Carl Landers, Chair
Chair Landers welcomed the committee. The Chair noted that the meeting had been rescheduled from November to December, and quorum was met.
2.0 Agenda Review
2.1 Changes to the Agenda
Item 5.6 Receive Progress Report on Measure T remaining projects moved before item 5.1 Review and discuss District controls for no-bid contract purchases to understand the triggers that move from no-bid to bid purchasing based on category, amount, approved vendor, etc.
2.2 Approval of Agenda
Motion to approve the January 22, 2025 Agenda with changes
(Janet Borgens/Karl Metz; 5-0)
3.0 Public Comment on Items Not on the Agenda
3.1 At this time, members of the public may address the CBOC on any items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the CBOC but not on the agenda for the meeting. Speakers are requested to limit their remarks to three minutes. No Committee action can be taken.
Mr. Robell expressed concerns about the district’s request to spend Measure S funds to replace functional fluorescent bulbs with LED lights.
4.0 Action Items
4.1 Approval of August 29, 2024 minutes
The minutes from the August 29, 2024, meeting were reviewed. A correction was proposed regarding the discussion of no-bid contracts, specifically the SAGE contract by the Chair. The Chair noted that the minutes did not fully capture the detailed conversation about the SAGE contract. The committee members agreed that no amendment was necessary since the topic would be discussed in detail later in the meeting.
(Jennifer Givens /Jitpal Sahai; 5-0)
5.0 Information/Discussion Items
5.6 Receive progress report on Measure T remaining projects
Mr. Robertson provided an update on the district-wide Phase 2 solar project. The procurement process involved selecting a vendor through a competitive RFP process. Initially, CalSolar was chosen, but they were disqualified after it was discovered they used an unqualified subcontractor to meet their DSA experience requirement. The second-lowest vendor was selected and is now under contract. The project is currently at the 60% design completion stage, and geotechnical, topographic, and boundary surveys have been completed. The district is preparing for DSA submission.
5.1 Review and discuss District controls for no-bid contract purchases to understand the triggers that move from no-bid to bid purchasing based on category, amount, approved vendor, etc.
• The committee revisited the topic of no-bid contracts, initially sparked by the SAGE contract discussed in the previous meeting. The Chair noted the need to understand the district's controls and triggers for moving from no-bid to bid contracts.
• Mr. Van Pelt explained the different procurement methods available to the district, which allow for no-bid contracts under certain circumstances:
Delivery Methods: These include best value selection, lease-leaseback, and design-build approaches, which do not require bidding.
Thresholds: The district follows the California Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act (CUPCCA), which sets bid thresholds: Projects over $114,800 must be bid, projects between $114,800 and $220,000 may be informally bid and projects above $220,000 require a full formal bid.
Piggyback Contracts: These allow the district to use contracts established by other agencies, bypassing the bidding process. This can apply to certain goods and services but not full buildings.
Sole Source Justifications: Items like HVAC systems and locks may be sole-sourced for consistency across the district.
Emergencies: In the case of urgent repairs (e.g., damage from a car accident), contracts can proceed without bidding if declared an emergency by the Board.
Energy Contracts: Under state law (AB 4217), energy-related contracts that lead to monetary savings may be procured without bidding.
• The committee discussed the nuances of no-bid contracts, especially in terms of sole-sourcing and energy-saving measures. Mr. Van Pelt emphasized that while the district has flexibility, it still follows specific legal frameworks to ensure transparency.
• Mr. Van Pelt gave an overview of the general procurement process for construction projects, emphasizing that for commodity-driven projects (like paving), specifications are straightforward, and inspections ensure compliance. However, for complex projects like building a new school, the focus shifts to selecting contractors based on proven track records, quality, and the ability to deliver projects on time and within budget.
• Mr. Van Pelt discussed the impact of change orders, highlighting that they are often the most expensive and disruptive part of construction projects. He noted that larger-scale delivery methods are preferred to avoid low bids that may lead to more change orders, thus ensuring better value for the district. When selecting contractors for projects over $10 million, the quality of workmanship and contractor relationships become key factors, with the bidding process emphasizing best value over lowest cost.
• Mr. Van Pelt explained that under Lease Leaseback and Design Build contracts, bids are not immediately required. Contractors are selected based on their qualifications, previous track records, and cost proposals. Contractors then proceed to gather bids from subcontractors for specific scopes of work. This process is used to ensure value and avoid unnecessary change orders.
Mr. Landers had a question regarding professional services contracts. Mr. Van Pelt clarified that for professional services over $90,000, an RFP process is required, but the lowest bid is not necessarily the deciding factor. Additionally, there are exceptions to this process, particularly for energy consulting services, as noted in Government Code Section 4217.
Public Comment: Mr. Robell had concerns regarding sole-source contracts, the committee should still consider highlighting such contracts to the public to ensure community awareness.
5.2 Review District’s legal basis for the no-bid contract exception under Government Code 4217 for $16.9 million lighting retrofit project (Board approved on 11/20/24)
• Mr. Landers explained that the Lighting Retrofit Project is a significant expenditure under Measure S with a budget of $16.9 million. This would be the first major expenditure under Measure S, excluding earlier payments for Van Pelt and for software. Mr. Landers said there are concerns regarding the justification for not bidding out this project, which include, 4217 Compliance, cost-effectiveness and the timing of the project.
• Mr. Van Pelt provided clarification on the 4217 exemption, noting that the lighting retrofit qualifies due to guaranteed energy savings. The project involves not only replacing light fixtures but also installing new wiring, drivers, control systems, and bulbs, all of which require specialized contractors.
• The project is expected to save the district approximately $342,000 annually (excluding rebates) based on 2023-2024 energy prices. Eric also highlighted that energy costs have risen significantly over the last decade, and this investment will help mitigate future price increases.
• A key benefit of the retrofit is the standardization of lighting fixtures across the district, which will simplify maintenance and ensure that the district does not face the challenge of maintaining a variety of different fixtures.
• Mr. Van Pelt explained that due to California's CALGreen energy code, the installation of lighting controls and occupancy sensors is mandatory for compliance when retrofitting to LEDs.
• Mr. Metz had questions regarding the phasing and timing of the retrofit project. Mr. Olsen, Program Manager for VPCS, confirmed that there is a schedule for each school, and the work will not overwhelm resources by spreading it across multiple schools simultaneously. Work will be phased by school, with priority given to schools with previous work already done. No major cost increases or change orders are expected due to the phasing schedule.
• Mr. Van Pelt clarified that the contract is based on a fixed fee for the number of fixtures; if the number of fixtures decreases due to demolition, the contract will be adjusted downward. The district will be entitled to a reduced contract price for fixtures that are no longer needed due to demolition or other construction projects.
• There was significant discussion about the ROI of the proposed LED retrofit and HVAC project. The issue of solar savings was also discussed. The committee agreed that the ROI should be calculated both with and without solar savings.
• There were concerns about whether it would be ethical or legal to “shop” the design work completed by Southland to another contractor. It was clarified that such an action would not be appropriate, as Southland should be compensated for the design work, and no other contractor should be asked to bid on that design.
• Mr. Landers suggested creating ad hoc subcommittee to meet and review the energy retrofit project. with a report back at the next CBOC meeting.
Action: Approval to create an ad hoc subcommittee
(Carl Landers /Jitpal Sahai; 5-0)
Public Comment: Mr. Robell had concerns on the costs of the lighting retrofit project.
5.3 Review District’s review process and information presented to the Board for approval of the Sage solar professional services contract ($540,540.00, approved April 3, 2024)
• Mr. Robertson provided an overview of the Sage professional services contract, which was awarded through a competitive bidding process in 2017 as part of the Measure T bond program. The district selected Sage as the energy consultant for the entire program, and the $540,000 contract was specifically for energy consulting services related to the current project. Will clarified that Sage was competitively selected for the entire Measure T program, but this specific contract for the current project was not re-bid. The committee expressed concerns about whether this was in line with competitive procurement best practices.
• Mr. Sahai asked whether data from Sage’s work on Measure T projects would be shared with consultants handling Measure S projects. Mr. Robertson confirmed that all data is owned by the district and will be shared with the next bond fund’s consultants.
• Mr. Robertson clarified that while Sage was not selected through competitive bidding for their professional services, the design-build contractor for the solar system did go through an RFP process.
• Mr. Robertson added that Sage was chosen as the energy consultant for the district, and their involvement was essential for meeting the Net Energy Metering (NEM) 2.0 tariff deadline, a program that could provide significant financial savings for the district.
• Mr. Robertson said that the solar project was progressing with Sage, and a $540,000 professional services fee was agreed upon based on their past work. This fee is for professional services, separate from the $10-11 million design-build contract for the solar system, which went through a competitive bidding process.
5.4 Receive report from the district on plans to implement Civil Grand Jury recommendations:
R1. Beginning by no later than December 31, 2024 and at least annually thereafter, each entity will document its organizational risks and address those risks in its annual Assessment of Internal Controls.
R2. Beginning by no later than March 31, 2025 and at least annually thereafter, each governing board will require its management to complete its annual assessments of internal controls.
R3. Beginning by no later than June 30, 2025 and annually thereafter, each governing board will require management to report the results of its annual assessment of the entity's internal controls.
Ms. Borgens thanked Mr. Landers for adding this item/s to the agenda but felt it is not a necessary topic for the committee to discuss.
5.5 Receive and discuss Measure S progress, including update on facilities master plan process and fast-start projects
• Mr. Olsen said the Facilities Master Plan (FMP) is progressing with the second round of site committee meetings completed. The next steps involve community meetings to gather larger input, followed by engaging a cost estimator. The draft of the FMP is expected to be presented to the board in the spring. There have been some delays, primarily due to difficulties scheduling site committee meetings, but the project is still on track.
• Mr. Olsen said that for HVAC upgrades, the board approved QKA Architects to begin the design for upgrading HVAC systems at four campuses (Adelante, Selby, Hoover, Roosevelt, and Taft). Design work is about 75-80% complete, with plans to submit to the Division of the State Architect (DSA) in February. The district is expediting equipment procurement to ensure HVAC work can begin in the summer of 2025. The district is considering a lease-leaseback contract for selecting a contractor. This method involves issuing a request for qualifications (RFQ) and proposals (RFP), evaluating both price and qualifications to select a contractor.
• Mr. Olsen added that the lighting retrofit project, led by Southland Industries, is progressing with all submittals approved, and equipment is being procured. The work is scheduled to begin in the spring of 2025, with after-hours work during the school year and regular hours during summer breaks. The total project duration is expected to exceed one year, with completion anticipated in 2026. The lighting retrofit project is moving forward, and the district is coordinating to minimize disruptions during the school year.
5.6 Receive progress report on Measure T remaining projects – moved before item 5.1 on the agenda.
5.7 Review Bond Activity – July 1, 2024 – September 30, 2024
5.7.1 Review list bond expenditures since the last meeting
The committee reviewed the list of bond expenditures since the last meeting.
5.7.2 Review list of contractor change orders approved by the District since the last meeting
There were none.
5.7.3 Review list of no-bid contracts executed by the District since the last meeting
There were none.
5.7.4 Review new projects/spending approved by Board since the last meeting
There were none.
5.7.5 Review list of current litigation and public disputes related to the bond programs
There were none.
5.8 Review District's financial update on total revenues and expenditures for bond program
• Ms. Szallos shared several handouts on revenue and expenditures for the bond program as of September 30, 2024. Ms. Szallos said that the total expenditures for Measure T is $213.5 million. Ms. Szallos shared the Year-to-date actuals for Measure T which are in line with the financial summary. Ms. Szallos shared the Account-Ability report, which shows detailed project budgets and expenditures as of September 30, 2024. The total unspent balance for Measure T is approximately $737,000. Ms. Szallos shared the Sources and Budgets report which was updated as of November 25, 2024, this report does not yet reflect the $13 million update, which will be discussed at the next CBOC meeting. The budget totals $215 million.
• Ms. Szallos shared the Measure S Board Report Year-to-date expenditures as of September 30, 2024, that show a total of $504,315. Expenditures are tracked separately for Measure S, which are primarily used for district employee expenses related to bond management. Ms. Szallos shared the report from Keystone Solutions which shows the total expenditures for Measure S are $2.2 million. In fiscal years 2022-2023 and 2023-2024, expenses primarily consisted of bond issuance and program management costs, with no significant construction expenses to date.
5.9 Receive update from District on CBOC membership:
Filling committee vacancies (taxpayer organization member, business association member, community member)
The committee is still below the required seven members, with vacancies in taxpayer and business representative roles. Dr. Baker and Mr. Edson confirmed efforts to reach out to potential candidates, including a community member who may fill a role soon. The next steps involve continuing outreach efforts, including potential advertising at town halls and site council meetings to inform the community about available roles.
5.10 Discuss future meeting dates and agenda topics for the next meeting
• The next meeting was scheduled for February 25, 2025 and will cover the fiscal period of October–December.
• The May 7, 2025, meeting will cover the March–May period, and the August 6, 2025, meeting will cover the June–August period. The tentative November 5, 2025 meeting will address the September–November period.
6.0 Adjournment
Motion to adjourn the January 22, 2025 meeting
The meeting was adjourned at 8:37 pm.
(Jennifer Givens /Jitpal Sahai; 5-0)