November 18, 2008

Measure D Oversight Committee Meeting Minutes of November 17, 2008

1.  The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:05pm.

2.  Roll call found the following members present: Sam Teel, Alan Cohen, Mark Cameron, Jim Quinn, Richard deSaulles, Jean Ottmar, Carl Miller, Jennifer Jansen, Joe Shammas, Henry Nigos

Absent: None

Public Present: None

3.  Adoption of Agenda: Motion was made by Jim Quinn, seconded by Jean Ottmar to approve the agenda as submitted.  Motion passed 10-0.

4.     Approval of Minutes of 4/28/08: Motion was made by Teel, seconded by Ottmar to approve the minutes as submitted.  Motion passed 10-0.

5.     Individuals desiring to address the committee:  None

6.     Information/Discussion: Update on Measure D Projects: Blakley reviewed the status of the various Measure D projects following the staff report that would be presented to the school Board on November 20^th as a guide and highlighting various aspects of the projects and their status. 

In conversation related to this presentation a discussion occurred concerning the comments that had been received from several neighbors in the vicinity of the Adult School concerning project activity that was being proposed at that school site.  It was noted that the staff would be meeting with the neighbors to explain the process and proposed project.  It was also reviewed at that time that the school district does not go through the standard city planning review and approval process but instead goes to the State Architects Office since they have jurisdiction over school construction.  It was noted, however, that the district attempts to be sensitive to the needs of the neighborhood where school construction is occurring. 

A discussion of scheduling also occurred and it was reported that all projects under construction were on schedule and all the projects in design were on schedule for possible bidding and award in June of 2009.  It was noted, however, that there were at least a couple of potential problems that may delay these schedules.  First, the schedules may be delayed by a delayed State Architect review process.  Second, the projects may be delayed by the lack of funds.  This would occur if the district is unsuccessful in obtaining additional bond funding when it approaches the credit market in February or March to finance the remaining projects.  It was emphasized that the district does not proceed to award a contract for projects unless the bonds have been sold and funds are in hand to allow the project to proceed.  Therefore, if there is a delay in obtaining funding then projects will need to be delayed accordingly. 

Discussion also occurred concerning the difficulties that the District Office/Maintenance Facility project had been going through due to site conditions and that at this point the Board had directed to continue to proceed with the location and have designated up to $500,000 of additional District Capital Improvement fund dollars specifically to allow the project to proceed even if additional soil condition remediation requirements are necessary. 

A related discussion involved the difficulties that had been occurring with the Stadium project and the soil conditions at that site coupled with the lack of a contingency in the budget from the start of the project.  It was noted that this has required several modifications to be made within the project as it has proceeded including deleting several items, such as, the trellis work around the concession stand that were not essential to the functioning of the project and could be added at a later date, but did result in significant savings that were then able to be used to offset cost overruns that were occurring due to addressing the on-going soil condition situation.

7.     Information/Discussion: Performance Audit: The committee reviewed the Performance Audit.  Chairman Cameron noted that the results of the audit had found that the district was appropriately expending the funds from Measure D on projects that were eligible under the ballot language.

8.     Information/Discussion: Annual Report:  Chairman Cameron indicated to the committee that it was their responsibility at this time to prepare an annual report to the community.  The committee reviewed the single page annual report that had been prepared last year and that had been formatted specifically to be able to run on a full page within the local newspaper as a method of distribution.  The committee consensus was that this format, with content updated to reflect current situations, was a good way to proceed for this second report.  It was also noted that possibly in the third year, with the completion of the stadium, music room and auditorium projects, it may be appropriate for that annual report to include pictures of completed projects.  The committee reached consensus to keep the report as formatted last year.  Discussion then occurred concerning changes to the information.   Member Ottmar took the lead, as had occurred last year, in developing a draft for consideration of the committee at their next meeting.

9.     Discussion/Action: Meeting Schedule:  After discussion it was determined that the next meeting would be held December 8^th.

measured/minutes/measured111808min.html