Hi, I'm Maria.
Mimi.
This is the General Services meeting.
I'm calling it to order.
So we do a roll call, please.
You've got Kip, Shawn, board member,
Terry Singer, Board member.
Joe Macfarlane, Superintendent Maria Miami Board member
John Miller.
Kelly Curtin.
Helen Simpson Advisor.
Mike French Business Manager.
And are you?
You're new this time, right?
This is your first meeting. Okay.
And what was your name again?
I'm sorry. It's all right. Yes.
All right.
As thank you and welcome to General Services.
Okay, so could we if everybody has had a chance
to look at the minutes from the last meeting,
we just need to approve them.
I'll make a motion to approve.
Second.
So moved
on to item number four, unfinished business.
The first item is the Granada Building.
Mike Franz, Do you have
an update?
I do.
Thank you, Miss Mimi
in. I put a kind of for everybody's
reference here where we've been with this building
so that we can go forward with the conversation here today.
But we had originally intended to to embark on a renovation
project of the building that we're sitting in Granada Avenue property
in need of renovation.
From an exterior standpoint,
the roof, windows, doors
and other exterior.
We had a
a firm working with us by the name of Crabtree
Roybal, who was working as the architect and developed a budget
for all of that project for about $3 million.
In January of 2019,
the district issued bonds
to raise those funds so that we would have the $3 million to start the project.
In March of 2019.
The bids were solicited and brought back in.
Unfortunately, the the bids came in twice as much as as the budget amount.
So in total we got about a little over $6 million in bids
for all of those things noted, we only borrowed 3 million
because of that was the initial budget of the project.
One of the things that was noted
because of the size of the project in the different
the different entities would have to be working.
We only received two bids on that $6 million, so went back to the drawing board
and said It's probably better for us to do this as a roofing project.
A Because while Roof was in the original bid,
we didn't get any roofing companies applying or submitting bids.
They were general contractors.
We have subsequently
awarded the bid
approximately $1.4 million to DETWEILER Roofing.
That roofing project is currently underway and about,
I would say, about 85 to almost 90% complete.
What we needed to do
and hadn't figured out is what to do with the rest of the building
or how to address the deficiencies that were there.
Obviously, we've addressed the roofing portion of the project
and the the that being the $1.4 million.
We obviously had enough funds to
pay for that and do have the funds to pay for that project
and needed to bring this project back to the General Services
Committee to talk about how we going to move forward
with the remaining work for the doors, the windows
and the additional exterior items that need to be
need to be addressed.
The ultimate goal and even to step
a little bit further back,
the district had not been doing the best job.
We own the screenshot avenue building.
It does have some
restrictions in terms of how it can be used
because the building was given to us by the Hershey Trust.
It was originally purchased by Milton Hershey
and then given to the district through that process,
the building
had been in sort need of some addressing from the standpoint
of the roof, the exterior, essentially, you know, keeping water out,
making it a watertight building.
Of course, the portion we're in houses, our administrative offices,
we rent a portion of the building upstairs to the Life Church,
the four reach of the building
houses, the Hershey Med Center and some offices we rent to them.
We are their landlord.
And then the middle of the building is vacant.
At this point,
our need to to obviously we went through a process
looking at this building and what we wanted to do with it,
whether or not we wanted to demolish it, demolish a portion of it, move forward,
whatever the board made the decision that we would like to save the building.
And so we've gone down the process of
what do we need to do to make sure we've taken care of the envelope.
What we'd like to do or what we're moving towards
is the middle section of the building is currently vacant.
We would like to rent that out for additional rental space.
However, we need to take care of the portion of the building
before we can engage anybody in talking about what the next steps are,
because we would anticipate, such as with the Med center,
that renovation was paid for and done by the Med center
to their necessity and their needs, and thus we wouldn't look to do much
in the interior portion of the building because we would look to whoever that new
client or
tenant would be to be able to do that.
That is the reason that we are moving forward
in wanting to needing to talk about this renovation project here
so that that can stay moving down that road eventually,
you know, us taking care of the envelope of the building,
making sure that it is weather tight and then looking for a partner
to finish the renovations to a more useful space of their own.
We've contacted and been in contact with various entities,
most of them educational in their nature,
but once again, hard to have any further conversations with them.
We tore a building and we, you know, we talk about the things
we're going to be doing to improve it, but until we actually do those improvements,
it's tough to talk about what that future future uses.
So hopefully I've laid the groundwork there of where we've been.
And like I said, what we wanted to do was bring this back around to
have the conversation
again of
how we go about finishing the project,
the doors, the windows, the additional exterior.
Noting that we have approximate witli
a million and a half dollars left over of the 3 million that we borrowed.
However, it's it'll be about four and a half million dollars
if we use the bid numbers that we received prior.
That's about what we're expecting the project to be.
We have not engaged the architects in any further
other than doing the roof portion of this bid.
So we have not talked to them about ways that we might be able to
adjust the project for various budget reasons,
but really need to start having this conversation again
about how we're going to to address these issues moving forward.
Thanks, Mike.
Just a supplemental information for maybe some of the new citizen advisors.
This is not all one building.
It's three separate buildings were in
what is traditionally called the A building in.
This was billed as the Hershey Consolidated School,
which brought together all the one room school districts in the township.
The four building, which is occupied by Penn State, Hershey is usually called
referred to as a C building, and that was built
sometime a little bit later as a junior college.
The middle building,
the B building was built as the Hershey, the vocational school.
That building has been abandoned and vacant for over 20 years.
No partner has been able to be found for that.
No purpose as identified for that building.
The use of that building is restricted.
As Mike said, by deed.
There is no building use, retail or lodging or food or restaurant
in that building and then additionally is no parking for that building.
So that and if you
if you go out for a new look, you can see the B building.
And if you're interested in to where I think
that might be beneficial for you to see what's involved in that building.
The original estimate that we got for total renovations in
and out of that building was was six some 6 million approximately?
No, this was no bid for the inside of the building.
I'm just the building total.
Yeah. We didn't receive any prices on those.
Okay.
Anyway, so that that is, that's a significant problem.
I'm very minority opinion on this but from my standpoint
that significant problem as a taxpayer, that particular building
now the other
the where power train is, that's a separate again that's also a separate
building, as is the annex which is down over the hill.
But I think
maybe a tour of the B building, if you're interested in in seeing
what we're talking about, would be helpful to.
So Mike, what
what do you what do you
where do you think the conversation is?
Well, for headed yeah I think you know
a is is circling back and having that that discussion.
Are we still on the same page as we were as we were before
in terms of what our goal was or is for that building?
I think,
you know, making sure that that
that's what we're looking for moving forward, I think
from my seat, what we need to
look at is then how are we going to to afford
and how are we going to pay for the renovations that need to be completed.
We've already went through the process of that need.
And like I said, I had the bids not come back as high as they were.
This project would would have already been started and underway.
But because of that, we had to
put it in phases.
Do the roof, like I said, which we will have completed here
in the next couple of weeks,
and then
I don't know if this gets turned over to finance
or we talk about this in that standpoint, do we do
we borrow the money that we may need to make up the additional 3 million?
We have some funds in our capital reserve setting aside, However, as we discussed,
some of those are earmarked for our safety and security projects from there.
So really just bringing this back to the forefront, back to the top
so that we have this discussion again and talk about, you know, what
our goals are and how we how we get this accomplished moving forward.
Can I ask a question?
This is Cathy Seger.
Can't we rebid the remaining work
to see if bids come back lower?
Definitely something we can do.
We would have to reengage the warehouse to essentially
put the information back together, because what they've done is they've
put all that together.
We paid them for the original bid process.
We would have to go back and they they would want some additional
for the work that they would have to do to put this in for the bid process there.
So we cannot use the current biddable documents that we have.
Nobody sent out? No, because that was for the entire project.
And now the project doesn't include the roof anymore since that's been done.
So all of that would have to be adjusted
for that portion of the process,
just that we've seen bids come back lower depending on the time of year.
And you see that with the rec center at the township.
I mean, so I'm wondering if you rebid the project, will it come back?
I don't think it does not come back.
It does.
I mean, for me, we have a $3 million delta here.
The bids are not going to come back $3 million less.
So I do appreciate that it's probably something less than we have now,
but I think we should still be talking about maybe worst case scenario,
how do we go about paying for this if all of those things happened
and if it comes back
less that actually, you know, obviously makes the decision easier?
But I don't know that I would necessarily rebid
that at this point without the understanding of.
So if we rebid and it comes back at $5 million,
that then what?
And that's why I think we need to continue
to talk about it and figure those things out.
Yeah.
My what Melanie comment there's a lot a lot going on with
with particular project
whenever we've had in.
The past.
Might different life bids come in twice the amount we're normally asking the
the design principal why
that's a huge delta
and normally we you know an entity would not be put
in that position of of seeing costing coming in twice the amount.
And if that's the case, either get a new architect
or you get the architect on the board and say, hey, why,
why is this Delta in Dallas?
Give us a critique on it there.
Put them on the spot.
Second, if you only have two bids, that's not a good situation.
It's not a competitive environment.
I realize that.
It depends on who you're bidding to time of year, the various disciplines.
So it's it's, you know, rebidding maybe,
But you have to understand why why it came in twice the amount.
I think as a citizens advisory, it's difficult
to comment on the pricing because we don't understand the scope.
You know, we're we're sitting here and you're just saying 6 million, 3 million.
We got a delta.
Let's go out and get some more dollars.
We can I can't comment on whether it's reasonable
cost or not, so I can't comment that I walked.
I will say one thing and it's maybe echoing your concern.
I have I have seen projects here in Hershey
where normally a lot of times when the Hershey Trust, they own
the property, they own the land and and you just get the building.
And if you don't have if you don't have a tenant
and if you don't have parking, that project is is
has a lot of headwind against it to get a tenant in.
So the last thing you want to do as a district is invest a lot of money
into a building that doesn't have a
solid use.
That's not good, good financial.
Now you're saying.
That. Acumen just a point of clarity.
I've been on the board for four years now and this has been an ongoing subject,
the Granada property and what to do about it.
The board did make a decision not to demolish Building B
through this whole process because it will cost over $2 million
to take down that building and create a parking lot right.
To solve our parking problem.
We have not exhausted all of our parking options yet and yet, in my opinion.
So that's something that is it's not done yet.
But I, I just don't know if we've exhausted all that
because there's parking around us.
So time will tell what happens with other properties around us.
So I wasn't as a board member ready to say, I'll give you $2 million
to demolish it to make more parking when I'm not quite sure
what we could do with other parking, with other entities in parking agreements.
And the and it's, it's the middle portion.
So when we go to do a roof, you don't just do a roof on A and C and not do B
when there's space there that we might be able to use someday
for educational purposes or whatever.
So we did come through some pretty heavy deliberations to get to the point where
the board made a decision to maintain building B and put the money
into leaking buckets of water anymore and stuff like that.
I would like to add one other comment.
I think the decision to do the roofs is the right decision.
So nothing, nothing against that because that.
That makes sense.
You have to have an envelope that's watertight.
So but going the next step requires a lot.
Of thought given and scrutiny.
And just echoing what Mr. Francis said.
We have had some preliminary discussions with more.
More or less educational.
Entities, but we're sort of at that point where we can't go forward.
Because we have a big part of the project to do, which is.
The exterior envelope.
Once we get that accomplished, then we can proceed.
But we've given a lot of tours and and things to different
groups who have expressed space needs.
But we need to take the next.
Step before we can continue those. Conversations.
I think another point, because you're just kind of
coming in on on the tail end
and Kip, I mean, he makes a really good argument
for what, you know, taxpayer dollars.
But we did inherit the building, right?
So we didn't pay for it.
And I feel not to throw any other board prior to us under the bus
like the can has been kicked to us.
I feel the exact same way about the rec center.
The can has been kicked
and now those people are making these big decisions
and it's easy to come in and be like, Oh my God, like $6 million.
It's dramatic.
But it you know, it's comes a point like we have a free building.
To attract a building like that would be I can't even imagine what the cost are.
So I you know, we're also trying to do the best with with what we have.
And we have been you know, to me, it's a beautiful building.
And I and I we do have a great track record.
I mean, we could get
into what Penn State pays in Rent and Power Train.
You know, there's no doubt.
But. Right.
We have to unlock the the parking piece.
And I think what Joe was getting at
with the education is it would be a bussing system coming through here.
So I think they seem like big numbers.
But we got the building for free.
So if you keep it all in perspective, it kind of helps
a little bit.
So, Mike, going back to Cathy's point, I mean, there is
we had a bid for everything At one point we pulled out
because it was too expensive twice as much, I guess is what
we thought.
We pulled the roof, the roofing part out.
It didn't
seem to me there'd be a lot of work required to just
pull that piece of piece of the bid away.
So what you have left is,
is the balance of what we were seeking to get done in the first place. Yes.
So I could get a proposal from warehouse
two and bring that forward for our next meeting to let me know
exactly what what those dollars would be for them to
to pull the bid documents back together.
And just to note a couple of the items you note about why the bids.
We went through that process and that was you hit the nail on the head.
If you don't have the architect you need, maybe they shouldn't be here.
And we started this process with a group called Crabtree Robel,
and they're no longer working with us because
it was $3 million bid and it came in at $6 Million.
We worked on a couple of other projects with Warehouse, which is the current firm.
They did do a pricing work up when these came back
and that pushed us to do the roof because the roof portion of the bids
were not drastically far off from where they needed to be.
So we determined that was low hanging fruit,
plus the need to just keep water out of here.
The roof itself is causing issues with our current tenant and I've obviously
we want to make that as have this go away if we possibly can.
So I think we will see some different numbers
coming back because of just
some of the projects we've done in the past.
And that's where I want to make sure that we are looking at the same project
that when I engage warehouse that it's clear that we are,
you know, going down the same path we were going for with them.
Hopefully they can do some things to tighten up the specs.
I think the specs will be a little bit better in that.
Now we'll have general contractors
bidding
on general contractor work instead of general contractors
bidding on roofing and some other things that maybe they're not as good at.
But, you know, based on the way we have to bid things,
it goes through that process and we just take care of the mechanicals, the heating.
And I think it would not know.
This is just the envelope of the building.
So it is just the the exterior air and everything that would go into that,
but it would not address anything on the interior.
And with your experience, you're you're comfortable that a prospective tenant
has been accustomed to having to deal with
the mechanicals on top, on top of the interior.
I think that's a better way for us to have that discussion is, Hey,
we've already made the commitment to make sure that
the exterior of this building is as good as we can make it.
Now we're looking to you,
you know, to make that other investment in what's going on in there.
And I can only you know, I admittedly have limited experience going through this,
but part of the model we're using is how the Met Center was brought in
and funding because of the fairly specific needs.
We may be talking about what we may do
or think that is best may not fit the final tenant.
And so we don't want to do some things thinking
we're making it better when we we might not be.
Not to say, though, that if we start to engage somebody and these,
you know, we get close, that becomes more of a negotiation.
This is the way that I think it's best for us to continue to move forward
as well as not.
You know, we've been
going about this process trying to not use district funds.
We borrowed the money that we borrowed that was able to fit in
with our current debt payment.
So we didn't incur any additional payments for that.
We structured it in a way that it would still work with what we're doing.
I am.
We are getting to the point, though, where I don't think we can finish this project
without using some taxpayer dollars, and that's
why we want to have this discussion as robustly as we can,
because everything we've talked about before, we have not used
any of our other resources
for this building, which we're proud of being able to do that.
I just don't know that we'll be able to finish the project
under that same understanding.
Mike, What happens if we don't do this?
Is the building uninhabitable?
It is while the middle portion is.
And as I noted, we're having, you know, currently we when it rains,
I know
about it in my office and I'm trying to get away from that.
When we brought this to the board, the administrator and I did
look at this
from a totally neutral standpoint and my recommendation for the board was
we either need to tear this place down or we need to care for it.
What we've been doing is not going to work.
We need to make one of those decisions.
And the board decided at that point that we best to continue to care
for what we have versus, you know, tearing it down and starting over.
And I would even say the roof has. Been taken care of.
But even the windows are not energy efficient.
They're the original.
On the outside, there was a plexiglass interior put in here,
but they are not energy efficient at all.
And there are wood frame.
So there that's deteriorating as well.
So even the parts that are being used, the windows, the doors are are in need of.
Upgrading of question.
If you put it out for bid, is the assumption that you would not
have not have electrical AC as part of that bid?
That that is correct.
Okay. That's correct. You wouldn't want to do that.
Okay.
What what how long would it take to get a battery worked like that?
And what do you have any sense of what the cost would be?
I bet that's what I do have to go back to talk to Warehouse.
As we talked about, a lot of that work has been redone.
They're not going to have to come back in and do a lot of research.
It's more or less taking what they have and putting it back in a package
that would make sense to two bidders.
I don't anything any amount of money would just be a guess.
It should be south of $50,000 for that to happen.
That would also then include them
going through the bid process as they currently do,
as well as provide services
to make sure that you know what's like on the current roof project.
They are spot checking that as well
to make sure what they've planned is actually occurring.
So a lot of that would be that that additional payment from there.
I don't think that it would be something that would take them long.
Once again, the information is there but would need to have the approval
that we would agree to pay that cost before I would ask them to incur
any time to be able to do that.
So it seems
so it seems that what you're trying to do here is
is get the doors, windows and exterior projects in one bid moving forward.
Correct.
Is there any reason we don't want to put that up as doors and windows as one?
And then maybe the exterior projects is another?
To some extent,
we need the project to be a little larger front.
So if we're just looking at Windows, that brings the scale down.
It may not because those contractors have
a mobilization, things that they need to do.
So if we didn't, if we did them separately, my concern is
if the same contractor got the windows and the doors, it may not be seamless
as it could be if we bid them all as one project.
That also being said that in our world
the same contractors are doing the doors, the windows and the exterior.
We see roofers differently.
Roofing companies will come in and bid on our roofing projects and do those.
We don't necessarily get the general contractors and that's one
one mistake we made by going through and doing this
all at once is we didn't get any roofers, we got general contractors.
And so now we've took the roof out and said, okay,
we'll deal with that separately.
We got roofing contractors in and got a much better price.
But my our thought is
that the general contractor is still going to be providing that information.
But I do see that.
But in my viewpoint, now that you have three out of the four remaining items,
the left, you can separate the two with doors and windows,
have an expert door and window installer as that.
And the separate projects are something else and maybe piecemeal that in 21 or 22,
saving on cost them deferring that down the road.
And then the other question was, was the Met Center approach
approached for building B at all?
Yeah.
Our issues with with all of this building is the lack of parking.
So the parking that we have right now, we are just about at capacity.
We can probably handle another 50 or so lives.
But the expansion that the Med Center is interested in is two, three or 400 people,
and we have not been able to with our current.
And that's one thing we also asked.
We've gone through that study, we've asked the architect to look at what
what could we do for for the parking and the land locked where we're at.
We could, of course, pay for it, but it would not be
economical for us to put in decs parking or something like that.
We've already kind of gone down that road, so
the use of that building is somewhat hampered by the amount of parking.
Thus the educational entities that we've been speaking with
make a lot more sense because they don't need we.
But students can be bussed, all those types of things.
There's just not as much need for the parking if we were using it
as an educational entity versus office space,
it's going back on the financial piece.
I don't want to hammer that too much,
but if you looked at your options and said, Listen, in relation
got the building for free, I'm going to make this much investment,
this much upgrade in the parking is an issue.
You have the demo costs over here
and you probably know what the rental rate is that Hershey can bear.
Has there been a financial analysis before you start to make sure it's
economically feasible to go go ahead and do the upgrades?
And if so, where is that analysis?
So we looked at the possible price per square foot rent
and just looked at that in that very
high level view.
When we went through that process and that business plan
was presented to this committee and the full board on
how we would look to move forward and possible items from there
from the standpoint of would we gain or garner the money back we've invested.
I don't know that it showed that line A probably wouldn't show that
that it would generate revenue moving forward.
But just like any other capital improvement you need,
you need to make those you need to care for the these things that you have
or or do away with them, But not
holding them in limbo is
is the worst decision that we could be making.
So we did look at those and the we feel
that there's the ability to generate revenue from here,
but also the worth that the building itself
has from a historical standpoint, from,
you know, from all of those.
There's additional things that go into that
when you're when you're talking about the care of a municipal building.
And we've had this discussion, it's not always dollars and cents
that's going to get you.
I, I think I presented that to the board.
If we're just making this decision
based on dollars and cents, we should be tearing the building down.
But there's other things that you have to consider
going through that because we are charged with caring
for this building and want to make sure that everybody was involved in that.
That decision, which which we were.
Mike, I have a question for you.
If why when would you consider raising the $3
million in bonds and not using our cash reserves? Yes.
Yeah.
Just from the standpoint of
for me, the all of the chips are on the table.
I wouldn't take anything off of it right now.
I think we can look to borrow funds just like we did currently
in a way that probably doesn't increase our yearly
debt service payment.
So that's attractive to me as another option to be able to garner these dollars.
Okay. Thank you.
So any other discussion?
We have about 20 minutes left for capital plan.
I'd like to also add that Mr.
Sophisticated had joined the meeting earlier on.
So she is here in attendance and we're going to look for direction
if if the direction of the board is this committee is to rebid.
We need a motion to.
Proceed.
Well, yeah, I think first to just to to go back to engage
warehouse in that discussion with the intent
of bringing a proposed contract forward for the for the rebid.
Whether or not you want that to go through this committee first
or if this committee wants to act on
providing that approval to
obviously no dollars will be incurred by that.
But at least if I have the committee's okay,
I can have the discussion with warehouse of
how it's how it's trending or how it's moving,
or if we need to continue, have more discussion, that's that's fine as well.
At the next meeting, whatever the pleasure of the committee
determined to make a motion
to make.
Let me just one more question.
So if we
if we ask them to give us a bid,
I don't know how long that might take, but
let's say we rebid it
and they start the work in the spring,
Is that conceivable or not?
Is that too quick?
No, I think that would be there's the bidding
process itself is is four weeks just by the nature of what it takes.
I think it would probably be
discounting the holidays that were out here, probably a two
or three week process for warehouse to pull all those things together.
So I think if we kept this moving and had that approval by mid
to late February, that yes, you know, we could look to to stage it.
And how long do you think it would take?
I don't know.
I don't know that we were looking
that it would be about a four month project from start to finish.
But that was when we were looking at it from a including the roof.
But I don't know if that adds or takes away from from that timeline.
So now looking for a motion to authorize
talking with our architect about drawing up
the bid, what they would with their cost would be to
yes, take us through the rest of the way, through the bidding process.
Mike, I just have a question.
Is it possible to talk to them about doing it the way the gentleman
at the end suggested, where I know you said maybe to bid it all together,
but is it also possible to bid it were the windows
and the doors are separate just to see if there's a.
So yeah, that'll be part of our conversation
when we kind of circle back is is taking their recommendation of
what's the most economical way to to move through this process,
recognizing that there are some costs in bidding itself
that will will take into consideration that if we have to go
through a process twice that, cost will be there twice.
It's not a hampering factor, but it's just something that
that we need to take into consideration as we're,
you know, see what the best way for us to move forward is.
But that would be something that I look to warehouse to to help us.
We wouldn't make that decision.
We'd make it in concert with them,
talk to them about the they might need to know
that ahead of time, depending on how we were going to bid it.
Yeah. Yeah.
Were they shocked by the number? Did you.
Not necessarily because they weren't the ones that developed
the budget necessarily.
So the roof came in about $200,000 more than they thought us rebidding it
the way that we did it came in to where they thought it should be.
I think that's what we'll
look to them as well, is to say, okay, here's the bids we know we got before.
How can we make this project?
Do you see anything in that?
What you see now that if we know that price tag, that we might not do it?
Because some of those things, that's part of the frustration sometimes.
But the bid process, as you go through all the things that you need
and then it's a painstaking process to see what does that actually cost?
Because sometimes when you get that in more that we can do without that
according to that cost, But
we don't get that information all the time until we're we're partway through it.
So hopefully that will be useful for us at this point.
So I'm still unclear.
Would we be authorizing you to just explore and get a number from them? Yes,
because obviously this committee can't you know, we can't approve a contract.
We can't tie them.
But the but that's what I wanted to
to first that time is are we still
if I brought the same project forward, would it have the same
approval or are there things we want to see different or.
That's part of this process.
What I hear is we want to stay on that same trajectory that we're on.
I can engage warehouse to bring back a number
to the full board in terms of what that would be, noting that this committee
has has approved for that to move forward.
So I could make make a motion that
we'd like to authorize business manager to
get up, get a price from our architect.
I'm drawing up bids,
correct.
In accordance with the discussion that we've had,
has made it second,
you have to say
we'll do a roll call then with the with the board members
or the whole committee, just the board members can go and order the discussion.
So this this exploration is not going to involve any dollars.
You're just going to talk to them.
And that's correct.
Okay. Yes,
yes, yes, yes.
Okay.
And I just I know we're running out of time,
but just one other question.
This general contracting role, do it.
Is it part of school code bidding that you have to have
a general contractor
about to give you a tentative answer of yes,
it the we are required to bid out specific
portions of the contract, electrical, VPC,
and then one of those buckets is just general.
So that's we the term is more or less it's
not electrical, it's not plumbing, it's not really the architect.
It's everything else doesn't.
Can the architect perform that general contracting role or not?
No, no, no.
It would have to be somebody that's in in the know and part of that
that process, they're essentially playing quarterback.
But as well they may have
a general contractor can have subcontractors underneath them.
So the general contractor may not do any work.
They may have subbed it out, but they're responsible for the work.
They get payment and they're responsible for scheduling.
And then, you know, they pay their subs when everything else comes through.
That increases the cost.
I mean, there's an overhead, there's a
I guess that was the whole
design of the of the bidding requirement that I was going to say.
I think part of it, it already builds.
You know, we've had that kind of discussion
with prevailing wage that that also increases the bids.
But the law requires us to do it.
So I don't I got yeah, maybe a version of that question does the state
law permit you to do enter into a contract with a construction manager
who would then who would then parcel out the work?
No, they would as
the only way we would be able to do that is if it went through.
So there's certain
piggybacking contracts we can go off of that
I can purchase through that contract and it meets our state bidding requirements.
We could possibly do it that way.
However, for larger projects
it usually is the bidding process because no one gets comfortable with.
If I go to that one person for that price,
the Monday morning quarterback and all of us
says, Well, how do I know that was the best price?
I didn't get other prices,
which we wouldn't be able to do if the instruction manager do
this would be for other projects.
They would go out and competitively bid the sub categories
and then they would bring to the client say, Hey, here's
here's five bids for each vashi, here's five for your electrical here.
So it's a different means, but the construction manager
may have a guaranteed price that they're working off of.
So it's a little bit different approach.
But is it public information as far as who your contractors
were that that submitted pricing on the first go around?
And if so, who were the who were the bidders?
One low bar was the one who provided the 6.1 and
Wickersham Construction
provided a bid of about $6.4 million.
Thank you.
Is there anything else
we need to move on to capital plan?
No. Okay, Mike.
Okay.
The other item is just to circle back here
with our
2020 2021 capital plan,
and I'm pleased to present this one is a little different
than what we had discussed before.
We were really trying to get the total budget
for the approved contracts down to around $1,000,000.
And that's just historically what our
capital plan has been.
We ended the 1819 fiscal year
a little bit better than I had anticipated.
And so we were discussing before whether or not we had the $250,000
to include the proposed upgrade to the 322 field.
And because we've ended the year
better than we thought,
instead of that being a question, I'm just including it in
what we're recommending now was approved all the items in yellow
were things that were brought forward by departments.
However, they're all items that can wait
and don't need to be addressed until the 2122 year.
So those projects will be on the 2122 report.
However, after going back and talking with each of the departments,
there was none of them that had to have that need accomplished by next fiscal year
for any of those projects in yellow. So
that is the full summary for that.
Like I said, we talked about this last meeting
and really were had good discussions on the 322 field
because our year ended a little bit better.
I'm comfortable putting that as part of the plan at this point.
I'll take any questions.
It doesn't mean everything.
Well, maybe with some of those done or some of these numbers estimates
and some thick like, you know, they're all budget estimates,
some of them
like the bus is really just that's what we paid this year
for those That's why it's down to the the level that it's okay.
But for the most part it's kind of estimates.
Yep. Okay.
There's a three to turf project
include the building that was discussed just just as the building did.
Yeah.
The turf is currently that's I think that project's about 95% complete.
But we approved that contract over the spring.
So this would just be that building of this is the only thing
being done there.
And just as another item that the
the board
is approving or on the agenda tonight is for the board to approve
for us to go out and seek bids for that project as well.
And what's going to be the cost of seeking those bids,
if any?
That was part of the well, we paid the or approve
the contract to get the biddable documents it'll be up to.
I don't know if Mr.
Anderson's recommending
to use this company for the bid process or if we would just do it ourselves.
Being the size of the project, I don't know
that portion of it. Kip
I think it was about 20 $500.
That was the proposal.
We had to go through the rest of the bidding process
Are the.
Replacement items based on a schedule?
They are
there
and I can share with you some of the drawings.
This is actually part of a five year plan where you'll see some of these.
This would actually be we're through that.
That urine is the final year of that five year plan.
And so we're just adopting the next year.
But we can share that with you to kind of see where how those cycles
are rolling through and some of the things of addressing them.
So as an example, if we push back one of the technology items to next year,
what are we losing?
Is it warranty coverage based off of that or is it just
we're just not covering it for, you.
Know, for like for our replacement MacBooks?
That would just mean the old technology is in people's hands for one more year.
Might be some more upkeep from our technology department,
more things that they have to take care of.
Obviously, as a piece of equipment ages,
you know, it presents those challenges.
But the things that are currently on there
from a technology perspective, we purchase,
we don't lease or anything like that.
So that's what it would just mean if they were put off from that year,
be one more year, we wouldn't be able to where we are.
Anything.
And some of the things that you see for technology
dealing with the elementary, we're currently
looking at a renovation project at the elementary.
And so some of those things like you'll see
one of them is replace an elementary lab
that's on that list because that very well is probably going
to be part of that larger project.
So we're not going to piecemeal those types of things.
So you'll have things like that as well that may be waiting
specifically at the elementary school, because if we're
looking at that renovation project within the next year or two,
we would look at these smaller projects
so I can answer
any questions on the capital plan
eventually.
I'm not saying it has to happen in this meeting,
but within the next couple we'd like this committee to approve
this capital plan to move to the full board
for their consideration and for eventual approval for that.
But that's what we're looking for.
You know, in terms of this process, I don't need that answer today.
And we've held this before.
If there's any projects on here you want to see additional information on,
please let me know.
We'll make sure that that that happens.
Any discussion?
If there's no further discussion,
just want just one question.
Mike, I know I brought this up, but
I think as a full school school board meeting, but with our
the ratings company that gave us our triple-A rating,
they did comment that since we don't have a multi-year
capital plan, that somehow they think this I guess I don't know but
to some wonder if going does it cause you to think differently about
no no because I think by the time we in some of that's
because we don't go through that process very often
but we're already already
have requests for information for 2122.
Of course, some of them are on here.
We'll kind of get there.
But I it just it seems easier for us to talk about these in these steps,
I guess to said before we did the five year capital plan
and we spent more time revising years four and five of that than
than were worth it.
So that's why
we don't want to look out too far because it's just budgeting out that far.
And those types of things just aren't in in our realm
aren't that useful.
So that everything.
Only thing I would bring up is the technology items, specifically only
because I did work here at the district before under the technology team.
So I would just mention and put an item in everyone's
ear that maybe that could be pushed for another year.
That's a considerable expense to upgrade
and keep obviously the maintenance overall.
But then there's also the upgrade if that does come in.
So technology change.
You know, I've been adding anything that needs to be changed over.
So it's going to be even either way.
And just basically looking at the list,
I'd say push that to yellow as a suggestion.
If anyone's on board with that, great.
If not, certainly bring it up and discuss further here at another time.
But that would be my push for the moment.
Does anybody see any reason
why we shouldn't put it in the yellow?
I mean, I'd be comfortable with that as well.
I think if we're going to make any changes to here,
especially when it comes to technology,
I think we should let the technology department
have some some input in that.
And see what they're dealing with. Yep. Yep.
That would make more sense. And certainly we could change that idea.
But just as a thought to move forward, bring them in to talk about that
and maybe push those items for the yellow area below.
I'm glad that you brought that up.
Can they come to the next General Services meeting and.
Okay. Thank you.
So one quick question to kind of piggyback off what you said
or the technology expenses.
I mean, are they
occurring on a somewhat regular basis that, you know, you could look at it
every year, you know, is this an annual expense that or is this
they are three years of technology kind of hitting at once?
Sure.
So this is part of their their various things that are rolling on on a cycle.
We try to make it so that those things aren't hitting all at one time.
And so this is a normal part of their upgrade.
Like if you look at the secondary MacBooks,
they're proposing that replacement for next year
because they're in their third year currently
they're looking at the fourth year and then past that.
So all of these would be regular items.
I think that's one thing I you know, if we're going to talk to pushing it to
the next year,
why? Because that's we'll have more things next year that will need to.
So some of this is dealing with items when we know we need to deal with them
so that we can move forward because this train always keeps rolling
and for pushing things out to prior years,
I think we're complicating ourselves instead of dealing with them
in the manner of which,
you know, we said is probably the best way to deal with them.
I think it's probably best to have them come and explain
the refresh process and what their plan is.
They can send a pre read of what the systems are now,
what they're going to upgrade to if this was approved, and then look at
I can take a look and give an overall recommendation
and we can have a discussion with them present.
So we're not sitting here about, you know, in one meeting,
if that's possible, for them to provide just some details, basic details
and feedback and the description of what's being replaced
to what's going to be brand new.
And we can understand
if it's compatibility issue next year, then yes, it's going to be replaced.
If it's not, then
something potentially whole.
Anyone else.
That seems to be it for the comments.
Can I have a motion to adjourn?
So move.
Second meeting is adjourned at 601.
Thank you everybody for your time.