June 1, 2017 minutes

 

REDWOOD CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

Measure T Committee

June 1, 2017

Minutes of the Meeting

Location:      District Office Board Room

750 Bradford Street

Redwood City, CA 94063

Present:  Michael Bolander, Jeanne Panos, Felix Gonzalez, Lori Bluvas, Rebecca Weekly, Elizabeth Flegel and Richard Delfs

Others present: Dennis McBride, Hilary Paulson, Will Mangrum, Don Dias, Candy Burns, Will Robertson, Wael Saleh and Terri Montgomery

Absent: Ellen Jacobson and Carolina Webster

1.     Call to Order

Meeting was called to order at 6:10 p.m.

•      Michael Bolander moved item 4.1 Presentation of the Measure T 2015 General Obligation Bonds Audit Report to the end of item 4.0 Information/Discussion as the presenter hadn’t arrived yet.

2.     Approval of the Agenda

(Jeanne Panos/Lori Bluvas; 7-0)

Move Item 4.1 after 4.2

3.     Public Comment

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. Speakers are requested to limit their remarks to three minutes. No Committee action can be taken.

4.     Information/Discussion

4.2.   Overview of District’s planning progress to date.

·      Will Robertson, Program Manager, gave a summary on the District’s planning progress made since March 2017.

·      Michael Bolander asked if Geosphere Engineering and Ninyo & Moore are doing all the soil testing for the lunch shelters being installed.  Will Robertson responded that these two consultants will be doing the geotechnical soil testing for all sites all projects as needed.  Currently, they have only tested the quick start lunch shelter sites.

·      Jeanne Panos asked can you explain what hazmat does.  Will Robertson responded that hazmat is short for hazardous material.  When the District plans to demolish a building, they will go in and take incremental samples throughout the building to see if there is any asbestos or other hazardous materials that needs to be disposed of.  If hazardous materials are identified, a separate abatement contractor will remove and dispose of the material properly so workers and the environment are not endangered.

·      Richard Delfs asked if the buildings were built before 1978, then they will probably have asbestos and lead.  Don Dias responded that the majority of the buildings were built prior to the 70’s and most in the 50’s.  There is an AHERA report that is required by law every 3 years and the District is pretty clear as to where the hazardous materials are located.  The consultant has to make sure when they do any demolition that they specifically spot test the area regardless of what the AHERA report says.

·      Richard Delfs asked would it be cheaper to assume that the buildings are contaminated and disposed of appropriately.  Don Dias stated the issue with approaching it that way is that the whole entire building would have to be abated, which is costly.  Will Robertson responded that sampling identifies specific areas that have the hazardous materials and possibly other materials.  Don Dias stated that a floor would be a good example of that, where a sample is taken in the corner of the floor and then in the other corner and if it came back having hazardous materials, one would assume that the entire floor has it.

·      Richard Delfs asked has the District received any preliminary reports from the consultants.  Will Robertson responded that the geotechnical consultants did all their testing, brought their samples to the laboratories and then created reports that were given to the architects so that they can properly design the structures and the piers.  The topographical land surveying consultant has completed their surveys of the elevations and underground utilities and delivered CAD reports to the architects so they can overlay on a site plan to more accurately design the plan.  The hazmat consultant did testing in the closets of the second floor HVAC units and has reported to the District that there is nothing to abate.  Trustee Paulson stated that they are our very newest buildings.

·      Richard Delfs stated that he was interested in state eligibility.  Will Robertson responded that the consultant hasn’t submitted any completed reports for any of the sites, but is identifying if the District is eligible for any state funding.

·      Michael Bolander asked when the Prop 39 energy consultant study would be completed.  Will Robertson responded the consultant is identifying the best locations for the District to put solar. They have identified Clifford which has a large open land area not used by the public and suggested putting a ground mounted system.  Kennedy has the highest energy bill the District is paying therefore, they recommend doing a large system there, but the areas that they have suggested are pretty intrusive.  They have delivered their first suggestions just in terms of ground mount and putting them on the black top, but have not identified any new construction of roof mounted systems.  Once the District approves a location and the Bond Team feels it’s the best value and location, the Bond Team will submit a plan to Prop 39 and hope to have that approved by the State by the end of August.

·      Michael Bolander asked is there any requirement that there be a zero net energy system for the school sites.  Will Robertson responded a zero net energy system is like having a building with solar on it and the District is not going in that direction because it’s expensive up front and it’s a new technology.  When it comes to classrooms and schools it doesn’t lend themselves to schools because when you go zero net energy completely you lose a little of the high performance learning environment. So you’re using more natural lighting than LED lighting so it’s hard for the children to see the paper and using more natural air flow than forced air flow units which can make the air temperature not as comfortable.  Will Robertson explained that each of the school sites are paying different rates for energy, which is being taken into account.  With Kennedy paying the highest price in the district, the consultant is proposing a large solar farm out in the fields.

·      Michael Bolander asked is the consultant proposing it because of the size of Kennedy school.  Will Robertson responded that a lot comes into play, such as, location, usage, etc.  Don Dias stated that back in 2013 the District tried to get solar, but that’s when Prop 39 started. The California Energy Commission (CEC) didn’t do their calculations correctly. Therefore, a lot of the solar projects that were submitted were rejected.  The industry lobbied the CEC, so they changed their numbers and it will be a lot better now submitting solar projects, but the answer to the meters is all over the place.  It’s the years they were put in, how far they are coming from the power source, how long the primaries are, each site may have 3 different meters with different rates on each of them, but that’s the way PG&E works.

·      Michael Bolander asked isn’t Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) the energy service provider for the County of San Mateo.  Will Robertson responded that PG&E is still the provider and PCE is creating the power that PG&E is selling to individuals.

·      Michael Bolander asked in regards to CEQA, Taft, Garfield and John Gill are the most impacted school sites, what do you mean by “impacted”.  Will Robertson responded that certain things trigger the CEQA process.  Taft, Garfield and John Gill were expected to trigger things that would affect the neighbors, traffic and environment more than the other school sites.  The CEQA consultant is confident that the other 13 school sites are categorical exemptions, which means that we can exempt ourselves by explaining to the neighbors why those sites will not be an impact on the environment.  Example would be that one of the sites has a 2 story building near a fence and the worry would be that the neighbors would complain that people would be able to see in.  The CEQA process would mitigate that by moving the building farther from the fence, offset the second story, raise the windows or frost the windows out.  Don Dias stated that all three sites had some traffic pattern changes; driveways are big CEQA triggers because now the neighbors across the street might get headlights in their living room.  Those are things that the consultant tries to eliminate and avoid ahead of time by moving the driveway 10 feet so that it is between the two houses.  Will Robertson stated that the CEQA consultant will do an initial study at the sites where the District thinks there could be a public challenge and they will help the District identify and mitigate those challenges with a mitigated negative declaration (M&D).  ISM&D is an initial study which will lead to an M&D.  Meaning, the District is going to impact the environment, but this is what the District is going to do to mitigate it with the hope that the neighbors are okay with the District going forward.  There is one step beyond that if the neighbors continue to disagree and that is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) where the consultant does a full study of every aspect of the impact to everyone and the environment, which is very long and expensive process.

·      Michael Bolander asked are Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) upgrades just for the lunch shelters.  Will Robertson responded that it doesn’t have to do with the lunch shelter locations; it’s normally near the parking lots.  For example, Roy Cloud’s back parking lot, the entry way dips down deep and goes back up to the gate, therefore, the District must flatten that out so that it will be easier for someone using a wheelchair.  Also the upgrades will identify missing handicap signage, lack of handicap parking stalls as per the new code, etc.

·      Trustee Paulson asked once you touch a site you open it up to Division of State Architect (DSA).  Will Robertson responded that for the District to get their project approved by DSA, they would have to do a small amount of ADA upgrades.  Don Dias stated that DSA looks at everything, but they hone in on fire life safety, structure and ADA.  With the lunch shelters it’s a path of travel.  So it’s a path of travel to the public right of way, to the main office, to the drinking fountain, to the restroom and that’s what triggers ADA and the plans must show that it’s ADA compliant.  That’s where topography comes in.  Topographers have elevations and numbers so DSA knows whether the area is flat or hilly.

·      Michael Bolander asked if the cost of ADA is up to 20 percent of the budget on each site.  Will Robertson responded the maximum ADA upgrades DSA can make the District do are capped at 20 percent of the budget of the lunch shelter project per site.  Each site has its own DSA submission.

·      Trustee Paulson asked when you start with the lunch shelter and the ADA is 20 percent of the lunch shelter and then you go back in for the modernization, does ADA get another 20 percent of the modernization.  Don Dias responded that with the modernization project everything that is non-compliant needs to get done.

·      Richard Delfs asked how long the lunch shelters are expected to last.  Will Robertson responded that they are warranted to last 20-30 years and the District is going with a nicer shelter so it is expected to last even longer.  Don Dias added that the lunch shelter at John Gill has been there over 30 years.

·      Jeanne Panos asked if the lunch shelters will be completed for the 2017-2018 school year.  Will Robertson responded the District is hoping to have the lunch shelters completed before school starts, if not, then fencing will go up to keep everyone safe and the contractor has assured the District that they can install all 5 lunch shelter at the sites within a month after receiving all materials.

·      Michael Bolander asked wouldn’t the solar panels still be charging the battery for the District’s backup generator.  Will Robertson responded yes, but the District hasn’t finished the specifications as it’s still being evaluated.

·      Trustee Paulson asked if the consultant is measuring how much electricity the District is using.  Will Robertson responded the consultant is measuring how much average electricity the District server panel is using a month, as well as, the peeks. That will allow the contractor to specify the battery storage system for the generator.

·      Jeanne Panos asked if the safety locks can be locked from the inside of the classrooms.  Will Robertson responded that they can be locked from the inside, instead of the teachers having to go outside and use a key, which puts them in danger.

·      Jeanne Panos asked if safety locks are put on every door in the District and then the building is torn down, will the locks still be able to be reused again.  Will Robertson responded that’s the challenge that the District is trying to work through, how the coordination with the contractor would work.

·      Rich Delfs asked if the safety locks were a high tech or low tech solution.  Will Robertson and Don Dias responded low tech solution.

·      Jeanne Panos asked what the learning space standards are.  Will Robertson responded that it is a set of standards/design criteria for each different type of classroom space.  The Facilities Master Plan (FMP) architect developed the learning space standards that all architects will use for a specific kind of classroom. For example, a kindergarten classroom will have a certain layout, such as a smaller shorter bathroom.  The classroom will have a larger square footage and all the design criteria will be met as set forth in the learning space standards.  The documents show graphical images of the classroom, showing layouts what would be on the wall, technology, etc.  All the architects will receive a copy to use when designing the classrooms so everything will be the same across the District.

·      Jeanne Panos asked are the learning space standards a State or a District standard.  Don Dias responded some standards are governed by California Department of Education (CDE) and some are not, it’s a combination of both.  Trustee Paulson and Don Dias stated that the architect, administrative staff, teachers and a team from the District worked on these standards giving input, working through drafts, etc.

·      Michael Bolander asked do the learning space standards apply to portables that would be installed if classroom would be torn down. Will Robertson responded it only applies to new classroom space.

·      Jeanne Panos asked is the gap analyze the difference between each school.  Will Robertson responded because the District did not receive funding to cover the entire project at each site, the District had to identify the priorities at each site and created a “blue line” which shows what will be done during this Bond program with the funding that the District received.  So in making changes, such as adding buildings, removing buildings, moving spaces to different locations and comparing the number of educational learning spaces before they began the bond and how it would end up after the bond was completed, the Bond Team found that some of the sites would be deficient up to 10 to 15 classroom spaces.  The gap analyze is where the Bond Team identified the lack of spaces, different quantities of spaces before and after and propose solutions to how to design the concept so that there were no lack of spaces once they were completed and then presented it to the Board.  The Bond Team has passed the solutions of the gap analyze on to the architects and instructed them to include those solutions into their concepts to ensure there are not less classrooms after than there were before, so they can be taken to the Board for approval.

·      Trustee Paulson stated the best example of a gap analyze is Phase I is where we have the money right now, Henry Ford’s office is demolished but it is not put back in until the District has another Bond, so that’s a definition of a gap and a big piece of the school went missing between the phases.  There was also a site that was missing 13 classrooms.

·      Elizabeth Flegel asked which site was missing the classrooms and what did you decide to do.  Don Dias responded the classrooms which were in the second part of the Bond that were not built caused the gap.  In the existing classrooms, the plans would have things like student services centers, different types of ancillary rooms that couldn’t be built then, so they would have to shift and still be there, but in a different phase.  Trustee Paulson responded that the solution was that the classrooms stayed classrooms on the school sites.  Will Robertson stated that the Bond Team will be posting the solutions of the gap analyze on the District’s website for each individual school site.

·      Felix Gonzalez asked was the gap analyze a redesign to the master plan or just a phasing change.  Will Robertson responded it was a redesign to the master plan.

·      Elizabeth Flegel asked if the temporary housing will be removed once Phase II is implemented.  Will Robertson responded the District is trying to do this full program with as little temporary interim housing as possible.

·      Rebecca Weekly asked is the District doing that because interim housing is expensive.  Will Robertson responded because it’s expensive.

·      Elizabeth Flegel asked if you are reassigning youths, maybe I’m misunderstanding…  Will Robertson responded more of the solutions were the architect was reassigning classrooms as alternate buildings because in the future if voters pass another bond program building new classrooms over here, that would allow these classrooms to be changed into a new classrooms.  Instead, the District’s solution was not to change the classrooms to the alternate classrooms and put the dollars somewhere else.  Don Dias stated it’s still there, but shifted into Phase II.

·      Rebecca Weekly asked does the school site get new things that were in Phase II because certain build outs weren’t done in Phase I.  Don Dias responded the money is there at the site, it didn’t get picked up and moved, the site remains its budget.  Trustee McBride added no one is ending up with extra money.

·      Rebecca Weekly stated it’s not extra money; the money is going towards something else within that site.  If this ends up happening, for example, the allocation for Garfield won’t get put at some other school because the new build couldn’t be done, it stays at that school and goes to some other part of the master plan at that school site.  Don Dias responded that is correct.  Will Mangrum stated that’s part of the intent for having the concepts go to the Board for approval because there are slight deviations from the Facilities Master Plan (FMP).

·      Richard Delfs asked for clarification on Phase I and Phase II, is Phase I what just applies to this particular Bond and Phase II depends on a new Bond.  Will Robertson responded yes you are correct.

·      Elizabeth Flegel asked about scheduling site visits.  Will Robertson responded that the Bond Team would like to schedule site visits at the end of summer so that the committee can view the process of the new HVAC and lunch shelters being built and/or having been completed.

 

4.1 Presentation of the Measure T 2015 General Obligation Bonds Audit Report

·      Terri Montgomery of Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Company gave an overview of the Measure T 2015 General Obligation Bonds Financial and Performance Audit for the year ending June 30, 2016.

·      Terri Montgomery explained that the Performance Audit is done for Bond funds to look at the purpose of the expenditures and tie those back to the original voter measure.  The auditors are looking that funds spent are in line with the language that the voters approved.  The purpose of the Financial Audit is to look at the accuracy of the numbers that the management provides.

·      Performance Audit shows that the District spent the funds only for the purposes approved by the voter.  The auditor does this by looking at random preselected invoices and the descriptions of what was done, along with what the inspector, District, etc. signs off on and that the project lines up with the voter language.  About 68 percent of expenditures where tested for 2016.  Normally the goal of the auditor is 25 percent of the expenditures.

·      Michael Bolander asked if the audit includes salaries and benefits.  Terri Montgomery responded yes, we always do target some salaries and benefits.

·      Jeanne Panos asked if the auditor is just looking at the paper numbers that are submitted.  Terri Montgomery responded that it’s important to know what the audit does and doesn’t do.  Auditors are not walking the sites and are not inspectors, but we are relying on your inspectors’ signatures to see that it has been officially certified and signed off, plus the District will have cross checks whereas someone in accounting will sign off that it was done, someone from the construction management will sign off.  There will be number of levels of approvals, but auditors audit the paperwork.  This committee is basically auditing as you walk around the sites.

·      Rich Delfs brought up an incident at another school district in Southern California where they were borrowing against the bond money to pay salaries of teachers and claimed that it was legal because they were just borrowing against the money and would put it back, but they hid that from their oversight committee.  Would the auditor pick that up in the audit and would that be important to this committee.  Terri Montgomery responded that it is legal, but won’t make your voters happy.  If it does happen, it will be disclosed in the report so the committee will be informed.  Chief Business Official Saleh stated the Board passes a resolution at the end of every year to allow the District to borrow money if it is short on cash.  It’s legal, the County and State give directions to the District if they are short at the end of the fiscal year to take cash from any other funds, which includes the Bond, but the District is required to pay them back within the next fiscal year.

·      Rich Delfs asked does the District pay back the money with zero percent interest.  CBO Saleh responded with interest earned, so whatever the District earns on the money is what is returned back to the fund.

·      Felix Gonzalez asked if the District borrowed money, where would the committee see it on the audit report.  Terri Montgomery responded you would see it on the Financial Report on the balance sheet as a receivable from the other fund, you would see a “due from” or “receivable from” the General Fund.  Trustee McBride stated there would be a foot note also.

·      Terri Montgomery reviewed the Financial Report to the committee.  This report looks at the accuracy of the numbers.  The auditor has an opinion letter which states their opinion “In our opinion the financial statements referred to previously presents fairly etc.”  Those two words “presents fairly” mean that the auditor gave the District a clean or unmodified opinion.  If it says something else like “except”, then the auditor would want a longer meeting.

·      Terri Montgomery reviewed the balance sheet through June 30, 2016 and the remaining pages of the report.

·      Elizabeth Flegel asked if the salaries in the audit were for the people who are working directly on the Bond project not teachers.  Don Dias responded that the salaries showing in the audit would be his and Ray Seo, Bond Accountant I.

·      Michael Bolander asked if the fund transfer on the report is funds from the District because the District hadn’t sold any bonds and will be paying that back this fiscal year.  CBO Saleh stated we already paid it back.

·      Michael Bolander asked wouldn’t it be a material deficiency because there was no account or budgeting system for the Bond until this year.  Terri Montgomery responded the audits don’t look at budgets at all, but if the numbers look misstated then it could be materially wrong.   CBO Saleh stated that the District does have a financial system that manages all of the District funds including the Bond fund; the District didn’t have a special Bond financial system.

·      Felix Gonzalez asked how often the committee can expect the audits going forward.  Terri Montgomery responded usually you would want them done by March 31^st, most school District audits are not done until December and don’t get presented until January.  The Bond reports is usually submitted in March.

·      Trustee McBride asked do we need to accept the audits and felt it was out of sequence and that it should have gone to the Board for approval before presenting to the committee.  CBO Saleh responded that only the Board accepts.  Terri Montgomery stated that usually both the District and the CBOC committee accept the audits.  CBO Saleh asked Trustee McBride what his experience was on this matter.  Trustee McBride stated the Board approves it first then brings it to the CBOC committee and they accept it, you want a written record of the acceptance.  CBO Saleh asked if we bring it back in September for acceptance will the timeline be out of order.  After a discussion between CBO Saleh and Trustee McBride, it was noted that the audits went to the Board for approval already.  CBO Saleh asked to have the approval of the CBOC Annual Audit Reports put on the next Agenda as an action item.

·      Felix Gonzalez asked moving forward if the audit will need to be approved by the committee.  CBO Saleh stated that the audit needs to be accepted, not approved.  Terri Montgomery stated the committee doesn’t want to certify that it agrees with the numbers as she is the one doing the auditing.  The committee just wants to say that they have received the information from the auditor and had a chance to ask any questions.

4.3 Update on bond expenditure to date.

·      CBO Saleh shared the Bond Summary Report Expenditures from March 1, 2016 through April 30, 2017 from the Account-Ability report.

·      Michael Bolander asked what “A-Site Total” is on the Account-Ability report. Will Robertson responded that it was the budget allotted to the school site for topographical surveying and geotechnical work.  Each line item is calculated off of the main construction contractor’s cost.  At Adelante the main construction contractor’s budget is around a million dollars, so our surveying cost is 2 percent of our main construction contract, that’s how the initial budgets were laid out.  When they get to Adelante and if any surveying is needed, we will have to expand our portion of the budget and balance it out in a different area.  The Financial Advisor, Bond Team and District all agreed this was the way to initially set up the budgets.

·      Felix Gonzalez asked to check on McKinley lunch shelter “A-Site Total”. Will Robertson responded that the lunch shelters are much different than doing a full modernization or full primary site.  The surveying and geotech came in heavier because the District was required to do ADA upgrades and additional surveying along with geotechnical borings to make sure the pier development was correct.

·      Felix Gonzalez asked was the budget for the lunch shelters a different percentage than the across the board 2 percent.  Will Robertson responded that the budgets were set up initially per the agreed upon percentages for any projects and these were now adopted.  There are other lunch shelter budgets that have dollars that aren’t going to be used up, so when we reconcile we will be able to find out if the project came in above or under the initial budget and we will be reporting that to the committee as well.

·      Felix Gonzalez asked is the budget number going to remain throughout or will the expenditures change and the budget will be updated.  Will Robertson responded the Bond Team will be updating the budget as it is a live budget.

·      Michael Bolander asked if the total at each school site will remain the same and won’t increase.  For example, Adelante’s modernization budget total is $1,749,703, can the committee expect to see it remain the same, but lines A through G that make up the budget total could fluctuate.  Will Robertson responded that is correct.

·      Rick Delfs stated that there is a huge variation in the planning total among the projects, so it doesn’t look like a straight percentage.  What costs 2.2 million at Garfield for example.  Will Robertson responded planning budget for Garfield is $180,000 for DSA fees, $30,000 for permits and related fees, $16,000 for preliminary tests and $1.8 million for architect fees.  Architect fees are around 10 percent of the main construction contract cost, which is the industry standard for public school construction.

·      Felix Gonzalez asked to explain line items “D-Testing Total” and “E-Inspection Total” on the expenditure report.  Will Robertson responded it is for any additional testing that is required.  Don Dias stated like a special inspector who is testing the welds on the lunch shelters, special inspectors for the concrete and IOR who is on site.

·      Felix Gonzales asked if the IOR is different than the inspection total.  Will Robertson responded that inspections falls under line item D and IOR falls under line item E.

·      Michael Bolander asked how the contingencies were calculated; they seem to be all over the board too.  Will Robertson responded contingencies are a percentage of the main construction contract.  CBO Saleh stated that it depends where it is in the project, so a project that’s in year two has different contingency and escalation then a project in year seven.  Will Robertson stated so fluctuation in line item “G-Project Contingency” could fluctuate and wasn’t planned as a percentage of the main construction contract if they plan on building the site next year verse three to four years from now.  Escalation is one piece that is not a percentage calculated based off the main construction contract. It’s dependent on what year that the project is built, but there is multiply line items within line item G that are percentages, i.e., 10 percent for main construction change order, then escalation is a percentage of the main construction contract times the number of years to the mid-point of construction.

·      CBO Saleh wanted to review a question that Michael Bolander asked that the committee should not expect any of the total amounts by site to change and that Will Robertson responded that they would not change.  Will Robertson responded it was his understanding that was the agreement once the Bond Team has the budget set and the architects locked in.  CBO Saleh wants to manage the expectation of the committee and doesn’t want the Bond Team to come back in two years with a budget change, or a change order, or an emergency and then the numbers change and the committee says it was told that it wouldn’t change.  Don Dias stated that our goal is to design to budget, so if that number should change they would get contingency taken up and all these red flags coming forward that the District is out of money and that would go to the Board and that might possibly change the amount.  Will Robertson stated the FMP cost estimates were done by the company called Cummings who originally set up the budgets.  The Bond Team is calling them the Cummings estimates and that is what they started with as a bases.  Then the Bond Team came in with our own estimates and updated the budgets and did certain site reductions.  Cummings identify each sites main construction contract total so the number of dollars that are going to the contactor to build what that site is going to see.  The Bond Team agreed that no site is going to see fewer dollars than that Cummings construction cost estimate that was originally developed in the FMP.

·      Richard Delfs asked what happens to the money if you come in under budget.  Trustee McBride responded that we agreed that if you deliver the goods and you’re under budget, that money gets swept back to the main pot of money.  Will Robertson stated that will allow the sites at the end to see the same amount of the main construction contract no matter what.

·      There was a discussion between CBO Saleh and Will Robertson as to what the real Bond total is $202 million versus $204 million.  Both will get together to figure out the correct amount.

·      Rebecca Weekly asked what will happen if there is an emergency like an earthquake or fire and it requires a large investment at one of the sites.  Will Robertson responded that wouldn’t be related to the Bond, it would be under insurance.

 

4.4 Discussion on Replacement of Committee members

·      Michael Bolander stated that there was one committee member that has resigned, Burgess Peck, Vice Chair.

·      CBO Saleh stated that the process to fill a position is that the District posts the position, gets applications, the Board administration reviews the applications and then the District moves forward to replacing that position.  Trustee Paulson added that the committee still has a vacancy for the member that represents a Taxpayer Association.  Trustee McBride added that the District is going to do another newspaper ad for that position.  Trustee Paulson stated that both positions would be advertised and filled at the same time.

·      Michael Bolander asked what member Burgess Peck represented.  Candy Burns responded Member at Large.

·      Elizabeth Flegel stated at the next meeting the committee will need to find a Vice Chair.  CBO Saleh asked Candy Burns to put it on the agenda for the next meeting.

4.5 Update on Revision of CBOC Bylaws

·      Adopted Bylaws where handed out per the changes made during the November 3, 2016 meeting.

·      Jeanne Panos asked a question regarding section 5.2 Agendas, paragraph B of the Bylaws on how to put an item on the agenda.  CBO Saleh stated that the agenda is the responsibility of the Chair of the committee to work with the Bond Contracts Manager, so a committee member would forward any items to the Chair and cc the Bond Contracts Manager.

·      Michael Bolander stated that he can’t call for agenda items to the group because that may constitute a meeting.  There was a discussion amongst the committee members regarding the Brown Act regarding meetings, emails, community meeting etc.

·      Jeanne Panos asked a question regarding section 9.0 Liability Insurance, what does that paragraph mean.  CBO Saleh responded that if you get sued as a committee member not an individual, the District’s liability insurance is responsible to cover the incident.

5.     Action Items

5.1       Approval of March 2, 2017 Measure T Committee Minutes

(Elizabeth Flegel/ Felix Gonzalez; 7-0)

·      Rebecca Weekly asked is there a reason the minutes can’t be emailed after the meetings.  Candy Burns responded that they are emailed out with the agenda and all agenda items 2 weeks before the meetings.  CBO Saleh responded if you have questions or find something in the agenda that needs to be changed, you can email Candy Burns and cc the Chair, Michael Bolander.

6. Meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.

(Lori Bluvas/Jeanne Panos; 7-0)