Part of the Bay Area News Group

Draft minutes from June Measure C Bond Oversight committee meeting

By Theresa Harrington
Tuesday, September 20th, 2011 at 7:05 pm in Education, Mt. Diablo school district.

Since the draft minutes from the 2010 Measure C Bond Oversight Committee meeting haven’t been posted on the district’s website, I’m posting them below. The committee expects to approve the minutes at its meeting at 7 p.m. Thursday in the district office.

Minutes from the August special bond committee meeting do not appear on the agenda.

“2010 Measure C Oversight Committee
Meeting Minutes

Members Present: Jay Bedecarre, John Ferrante, Faye Mettler, Jenny Reik, Bonnie McDonald, Susan Noack, Marc Willis, Larry Wirick, John Parker, Tina Seagrove, Connie Schulte, Alicia Minyen, John Burke

Members Absent: Mark Weinmann(excused), Rick Callaway (unexcused)

Board Representative: Cheryl Hansen

Staff: Pete Pedersen, Tim Cody, Mitchell Stark, Linda Carter, Richard Jackson, Marc Fabie, Brad Hunter

John Ferrante called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM

There was no public comment.

Copies of the March 17, 2011 meeting minutes were distributed. Susan Noack made a motion to approve the minutes and Faye Mettler seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

Susan Noack made a request that the draft of the minutes be sent out to all committee members within a few days after the meeting and then again right before the next meeting. It was agreed that that would be the process.

Pete told the committee that two people have applied to be on the Oversight Committee. The Committee currently has the number of people from the required community groups per Prop. 39 verbiage. Susan Noack said she supported adding members due to the fact that we often have committee members absent. The rest of the committee agreed. Pete will forward the applications to John Ferrante.

Pete introduced the two new members of the Measure C staff: Richard Jackson, Construction Manager II, and Marc Fabie, Logistics/Project Coordinator.

John Parker asked how much staff Measure C currently has. Pete said that he would like to address that later in the meeting and John agreed.

Measure C Team Headquarters relocation: Tim Cody showed a map of Holbrook Elementary which will serve as a base/headquarters for the the Measure C staff, along with the MDUSD SunPower project team and various consutants, architects, etc. He showed the
committee the rooms that would used. Tim emphasized that Measure C has attempted to be sensitive to the staff at Holbrook as they pack and move. Pete reiterated that the Measure C team has not been at the site discussing or encouraging the move with the staff. The team hopes to be able to move before the end of June. John Parker wanted to know what was going to be stored in the MU room. Pete stated that at this time there was only lighting slated to be stored in the
MU and that there would be no machinery or any big trucks making deliveries that would impactthe neighborhood. Cheryl Hansen asked how the school was informed that Measure C would be moving to Holbrook; that they didn’t seem to know. Pete replied that he believed that the school closure committee, M & O or warehouse was responsible for communicating with the Holbrook Administration and staff. John Parker asked if Holbrook was more desirable than Glenbrook. Pete stated that there are other possible plans for Glenbrook.

Annual Performance Audit: Bryan Richards, MDUSD CFO, suggested we hire Christy White as our auditor. Pete provided the committee with a copy of the potential agreement with Christy White. John Parker and Jenny Reik questioned why we would go all the way to San Diego for an auditor and Marc Willis wondered what experience she had; should we do an RFP instead? Alicia Minyen was concerned that if the scope of the audit changed how would that impact the cost over the three year period of the contract. And who determines the scope? Pete said the scope was determined by recommendation from the CFO. Susan Noack “googled” and discovered that Christy White is the auditor for the Contra Costa County Office of Education. After further discussion it was decided that Pete would ask Bryan for more information about Christy White and that Cheryl Hansen would inquire from her fiscal department at the CCCOE what their experience had been with her firm and the responses will be forwarded to the committee members. A motion was made by Jay Bedecarre to approve the Christy White contract pending possible negative information. Larry Wirick seconded the motion. The motion
passed with one nay vote. (Alicia Minyen).

Solar Project-status report: Mitchell Stark stated that there are currently 16 sites that were approved by DSA and are under construction. Many of the Increment 2 sites have been approved and the rest are due to go to DSA soon. The architects have not experienced any problems or concerns from DSA during the approval process. Designs and schematics for Increment 3 are being completed. Pete advised that the solar project school sites were grouped in geographical areas to increase efficiency; however some Inc. 2 sites have been accelerated in order to mitigate impact on school and neighborhoods. Glenbrook and Holbrook are being held out awaiting direction from the School Board. Contingency letters have been sent out to schools in case construction is ongoing at the beginning of the school year and the team tried to address all possible contingencies. The information is to be distributed by the sites as they deem most efficient. Susan Noack stated that her school (Strandwood) website cannot link to the Measure C website. Pete will investigate and see if this can be resolved. The Measure C team will do whatever it can to enhance outreach.

Faye Mettler wondered who was responsible for getting information to the school and community. Pete emphasized that the Measure C team has been to all the schools and spoken to Administration, staff and other school community members; created a website, met with all City managers and Federal Glover and that we have sent out brochures, but it was assumed that the individual schools will get the information to the school community.

Jon Parker asked if the Measure C staff would be speaking with the new principals. Marc Fabie said yes and that the team has asked to be on the agenda at the meetings.

Faye suggested signs and Cheryl agreed. It was also suggested that the District encourage the sites to communicate with their local community. Pete related that the signs were already in progress.

Connie Schulte wondered how we kept the arrays from being vandalized. Pete said that we really have no way of doing that but that he has not heard of any real problems. John Ferrante added that Pittsburg Unified put up solar arrays and have not experienced any vandalism.

HVAC Project-status report: Tim Cody reported that all information is online and that the schematics are finished and they are on to the design phase, then to DSA. They are right on schedule. Cheryl Hansen asked if they are controlled at the site or at the M &O office? Tim said that they have individual thermostats but we do have the capability of controlling globally. He also stated that the new units can feed up to 6 classrooms.

Technology Infrastructure-status report: Tim Cody stated that Optiman will soon be all over the district. We will also be issuing a RFP for security.

High School Projects: Pete advised that each high school has been allotted 1.5 million dollars and was asked for a “wish-list” to be submitted to the Measure C team. The team will put together rough costs and get back to the sites. At the June 28, 2011 Board meeting the team will submit a list of projects. The monies for these projects will come from Prop 55, 2002 Measure C, 2010 Measure C and Developer Fees.

DSA Certification Projects: Three projects have been closed, we are working on two more and there are 13 projects that we are still gathering data on.

Financials: Mitchell Stark reported that the District had another Bond sale for 1.5 million. $175, 000 was moved to Measure C, mostly for legal fees.

Alicia Minyen asked who or what determines a Bond sale? Pete stated that the cash flow requirements associated with the projects: solar, HVAC, determine the timing of a Bond sale. There are time limits on Bond expenditures and there will be multiple Bond sales driven by the needs and timelines and management issues of the projects.

John Parker wondered what the purview of the Oversight Committee is with regard to Bond sales. Pete related that he didn’t believe it was in the Committee’s purview to make decisions related to the sale of the bonds. Pete said that, if the Committee requests, he would schedule Bryan Richards at a later meeting to explain Bonds. Pete also stated that they would look at using the same format as the previous Measure C quarterly report to indicate the cash flow of the
Bond money.

Mitchell showed with a power point demonstrations how the money has been spent thus far.

John Ferrante asked why the irrigation project was put on hold. Pete reported that he and the team were not comfortable with the lack of hard info and data that is available and were waiting for better technology.

Pete, using current and past data, shared with the committee, a comparison of actual staffing/management costs when Vanir provided Construction Management service for the 2002 Measure C program and positions and approximate costs to date with the present “in” house residential staffing mode.

John Parker asked what the anticipated cost is for next year. Pete stated that the total for the entire seven years should be about 8.1 million.

Marc Willis asked, again, about the possibility of going on a field trip to SunPower. Pete will look into it.

John Ferrante mentioned that if a member’s one or two year term was up, they had a choice to leave or to sign up for another term. The limit is two terms-either two year terms or one year or a combination. If a member does leave it is asked they try to find their own replacement.

Linda will email the people whose terms are ending.

It was suggested that we move the Public Comment section of the agenda to a different spot.

Pete shared the question posed by Alicia Minyen at the last meeting regarding COPS and the response from Meredith Johnson, Bond Counsel. Alicia says that she will look into it further.

The scheduled meetings for year are:
September 15, 2011(next meeting)
December 15, 2011
March 15, 2012
June 21, 2012
The meeting was adjourned at 9:25PM”

As you can see, the committee never discussed the fact that there would be no July organizational meeting, as required by its bylaws.

Do you think the district should post the draft minutes online before the meeting?

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

67 Responses to “Draft minutes from June Measure C Bond Oversight committee meeting”

  1. Theresa Harrington Says:

    When asked where the more than $165,000 for the Bay Point design contract was coming from, Pedersen said it was part of the “contingency” built into the $348 million Measure C facilities plan.
    Of that, about $202 million is budgeted for projects. The rest is for lease purchase and COPS payoffs, contingencies, cost escalation, soft costs, etc.
    Pedersen said the Bay Point study could help justify the use of 2010 Measure C modernization money to renovate schools. However, he said the district would likely need to seek other funding to build a new school.
    Does $146 million seem reasonable to set aside for contingencies, cost-escalation, lease purchases, soft costs, etc?
    Regarding the first Northgate project, the district also purchased trash compacters for several schools and put in solar pool water heaters at two schools, I believe. I’m not sure if the lease-buyback was just for solar or if it included other items, as well.

  2. Interested Board Observer Says:

    Just wrote our check for taxes. Made me curious so I looked up our old tax bills. (I rounded the amounts to the nearest dollar.)

    2004-2005 Mt. Diablo 2002 Bd 94.00
    2005-2006 Mt. Diablo 2002 Bd 98.00
    2006-2007 Mt. Diablo 2002 Bd 107.00
    2007-2008 Mt. Diablo 2002 Bd 103.00
    2008-2009 Mt. Diablo 2002 Bd 113.00
    2009-2010 Mt. Diablo 2002 Bd 125.00
    2010-2011 Mt. Diablo 2002 Bd 130.00
    Mt. Diablo 2010 Bd 22.00
    2011-2012 Mt. Diablo 2002 Bd 142.00
    Mt. Diablo 2010 Bd 18.00

    What are your bills looking like?

  3. Theresa Harrington Says:

    IBO: At Tuesday’s board meeting, financial advisor Jon Isom explained the pros and cons of refunding about $100 million from the 2002 Measure C bonds. He said a pro would be that the district could sell more 2010 bonds sooner and still stay under the $60 per $100,000 in assessed valuation. A con, however, is that the district will pay a penalty on refunding the bonds before 2013.
    The board unanimously adopted the resolution that would allow the refunding.
    When Isom asked for direction from trustees regarding the pros and cons around the timing, Eberhart said the board trusted Isom to do a good job.
    IBO: Is your bill still below $60 per $100,000 in assessed valuation?

  4. Interested Board Observer Says:

    Huh. Not sure. Under Assessment Information we have Gross Value ($246,000), or Net Value w/ homeowner exemptions($239,000)?

  5. g Says:

    Contingency: From the State of CA Administration Manual, “The construction contingency is a set percentage of the construction contract amount budgeted for unforeseen emergencies or design shortfalls identified after a construction project commences”.

    Nowhere does it say Contingency is a good place to “hide the pea” in order to get more funds allocated for a future contract. The state is also very clear about building in Augmentation amounts on current contracts.

    Pedersen’s Contingency is spread out over every current construction contract for every school. I have complained about the Contingency being set at 10.5% when the norm is 5-7%.

    While this bloated contingency leaves plenty of room for excessive escalation of costs over budget (which we’ve already seen in the solar contract due to mismanagement), if any money is left over in the Contingency fund, he can brag about how, thanks to his leadership, the projects came in “under budget”! And wow, now we have “extra” money for studies for future projects. That’s OK though, because we won’t have to pay for those studies for another 25-30 years!

  6. g Says:

    IBO: I always recommend double checking on any math I do, but, at $60/$100K with 2010 promise of combining the two and still remain under $60per, the combined assessment rate would be a max of .06 x your net amt of $2390.00, or $143.40. But your combined assessments were charged at a rate of .067.

    My personal combined assessments came in at .0612. I have no idea why that percentage would be different for different properties. In any case, if my math is correct, we both broke through the $60/ promised ceiling.

    But always remember, “that was just a Ballot promise”.

  7. Interested Board Observer Says:

    Thanks, G. It’s pretty close though.

  8. Alicia M. Says:

    My tax bill is also at $61.20 per $100k of the “net value”.

  9. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Here is Pedersen’s clarification regarding the “direction” noted in the Quarterly Reports, which I received in an email response to a question about what appeared to be conflicting information:

    “I can see where this would appear conflicting. Up until last spring I suspended design development on the two sites until I had a clearer idea of how they might be occupied/used. At my direction (your “per direction” question) last May I directed my staff that we at least get the sites back on the broad schematic design track( as opposed to formal construction drawings) by at least looking at the potential for a solar installation. No direction had been given to proceed with construction drawings or construction/installation. Had we not at least start looking at these sites schematically at that point we would run the risk of failing to give SunPower timely direction (resulting in potential delay claims) should MDUSD eventually elect to proceed with solar at either or both of these sites. Additionally, absent at least some fundamental design elements resolved at these sites (in advance of any Board direction to proceed with installation)we could run the risk of an extensive project delay which would have the potential of financial consequences with respect to meeting mandatory CSI milestones. Bear in mind that at this time neither site had been formally de-scoped from the original contract with SunPower. Nor had I formally approached the Board or the Superintendent about this matter. As such, I was “holding” off on giving SunPower any authority to proceding with any construction drawings much less construction/installation of solar systems for these sites until I could reconfirm direction. All other Increment 1 and 2 sites were proceeding with the development of construction drawings/DSA submission and procurement activities had been initiated by SunPower for these Increment 1 and 2 sites.”

    “… all steel structures at the Increment 1 and 2 sites is installed and the electrical work is in progress. These sites were designed, approved by the DSA and procurements arranged months ago. Both Holbrook and Glenbrook were tentatively assigned to Increment 3 as that was the only increment remaining. No procurement for these sites has taken place nor have formal directives to SunPower been issued to install systems at either of these sites. As I shared with the CBOC I would like to proceed with the installation of the solar instllations but intend to re-confirm direction with the Superintendent/Board.”

  10. g Says:

    Pedersen: I won’t hold my breath to have you justify the roughly $2million in already signed contracts, the “special consultant” already paid or the on-going “in-house” management salaries that show on the Sept. Quarterly (you only get to see one a year) Report.

    Did no one tell you as early as Nov 2010 that the plan was to close two or three schools?

    Did no one suggest, or you have the foresight to at least note this in your contracts?

    Did the delay or possible complete deletion of HVAC at two or more sites come up in your “change orders–budget increases” with SunPower that was supposedly because you had “under counted” the wattage needs of all the HVAC?

    Tell me another one.

  11. MDUSD Board Watcher Says:

    NOTE: This comment was edited to delete a personal attack.

    Pedersen is ….

    It would be interesting to know if he is … easily influenced by Gary and Steve.

  12. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Recently posted FAQ’s by the San Ramon Valley USD about its solar project:

  13. Theresa Harrington Says:

    The Contra Costa Community College Board will consider a Project Labor Agreement on Wednesday:
    Opponents of PLAs fought the 2010 Measure C bond, fearing the MDUSD board would enter into a PLA for school improvements. So far, however, the board has not considered a PLA for the 2010 bond construction projects.

  14. Theresa Harrington Says:

    In looking at SPI Tom Torlakson’s Schools of the Future Initiative, I see that MDUSD Board President Gary Eberhart served on the “Renewable Energy” policy subcommittee (pg. 64) representing Seward L. Schreder Construction, Inc. (there is no mention that he is also the MDUSD Board President):

  15. g Says:

    Pg. 77: “Develop and implement effective energy efficiency programs for
    existing schools. First and foremost, energy audits need to be done that would create
    benchmark data.”

    Hmmmmm. Did Pedersen/Eberhart get us some “benchmark data”?

  16. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Rep. George Miller visited Pittsburg’s solar project today:

  17. Theresa Harrington Says:

    On Tuesday, the board may approve $91,941 in costs through June 2013 for a Measure C fiscal analyst:

Leave a Reply