Riechel Reports - Events - City of San Bruno CA


Measure X Bond Oversight Committee May 20 2020 Meeting Agenda


Article Source:  SBPSD

Text Box:  	500 Acacia Avenue, San Bruno, CA 94066-4222 Tele: 650.624.3100CITIZENS’ BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
MEASURE X

MEETING AGENDA

May 20, 2020
6:00 PM-7:00 PM
Due to COVID-19 and Shelter in Place Order, all members will be attending this meeting via:
Google meet
Meeting ID:
https://meet.google.com/gan-htph-vep
Phone Numbers: (US) +1 414-436-8854
Pin: 430 533 927#

1.                

Welcome/Introductions/ Roll Call

 

2.                

Approval of Minutes

Action Item

3.                

Measure X Bonds –Audit Report

Information Item

4.                

Project Update

Information Item

 

Presented by Todd Lee, Program Manager

 

5.                

Bond Expenditures to date

Information Item

 

Presented by Patricia Paulsen, Key Analytics

 

6.                

General Public Comment

 

7.                

Adjourn

 

 

To obtain a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate in the meeting, please contact Cecille Mendiola (cmendiola@sbpsd.k12.ca.us) at least two business days before the meeting.

Public attendance and testimony are welcome at the meeting.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES:

Jennifer M. Blanco • Teri Chavez • Kevin J. Martinez • Andrew T. Mason • Henry Sanchez, M.D.

Sharon Kamberg, Ed.D., (Interim- Superintendent)


Text Box:  	500 Acacia Avenue, San Bruno, CA 94066-4222 Tele: 650.624.3100

 
MEASURE X CITIZEN’S BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

MINUTES

February 20, 2020

1.   Welcome/Introductions/Roll Call

Wendy Al-Mukdad, chair called the meeting to order at 6.03pm; The following committee members were present:

Wendy Al-Mukdad Jeff Fornesi

Andrew Lipscomb George Peponis Jim Ruane

Members absent  Raul Gomez

Stephen Seymour

Welcomed the new Associate Superintendent, Ms. Mariana Solomon; she gave a brief information about herself. Committee members gave an introduction of themselves for Ms. Solomon.

The following administration was present: Dr. Candi Clark

Presenters:

Patty Paulsen, Key Analytics Todd Lee, Greystone West

2.   Approval of February 26, 2020 Minutes

Jim Ruane made the motion to approve the minutes, Jeff Fornesi seconded the motion; motion carried with 5-0-2; 

5 yeses, 0 noes, 2 absent.

3.   Project Update

Mr. Todd Lee gave the following project updates:

        Design budget and development: Schematic design budget and schedule were approved by the Board of Trustees at the November meeting. Since then, there has been one budget adjustment, which was approved on January 25th at the special board meeting. By doing some square footage reductions for the buildings and reconfiguration, we were able to pull about $2.5 million from the budget; the budget reduction was approved by the board. Now, the budget sits just below the approved budget of $60 million. The first phase of engineering, design development drawings, is scheduled to be completed on March 4th, after which we will move into the design development process in  


 
coordination with the engineers to incorporate the details, including beam sizes, concrete thickness, steel weights, etc. During the design development process, problems may arise, but should be fleshed out.

        CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) filing: CEQA filing was slated to be a mitigated negative declaration; CEQA filing has 3 different levels:

1.   Exemption: unqualified with the construction of a whole new school

2.   Mitigated negative declaration (MND): there is environmental impact, but we have the means to mitigate that impact

3.   Environmental Impact Report (EIR): detailed in full report (EIR)

A draft of the mitigated negative declaration was brought to the board on February 12th. However, at the urging of the city of San Bruno’s community development director, we are still waiting on the historical resources. An architectural historian reviewed the existing Allen Elementary School. The report was sent to the state office of historic preservation, concluding that Allen Elementary School was indeed historically significant, as it was one of the earliest examples of the mid-century modern design for a school in the state of California. Although it was considered historically significant, it does not mean we have to save the school. The historian establishes that there are no redeeming qualities in its design only that it has to do with it being the first of its kind. In fact, there were certainly hazardous materials in the structure. This is one of the other critical items for us on the schedule. Trustee Chavez is helping us with this filing. The application for PG&E has been filed, but PG&E is behind on everything. Nonetheless, the historic resource aspect of Allen Elementary School requires us to expand our CEQA filing from mitigated negative declaration to a full EIR. This means that instead of coming back on March 11th for the board to take action on our drafting, on April 15th we will bring a focus DIR that will focus only on the historical resource aspect and provide options on how to treat the school in light of its historical significance. All other concerns will be addressed through the MND. The EIR has two 45-day public comment periods, pushing us out to early August instead of June, still keeping us to finish prior to a scheduled DSA submittal; therefore, there is no impact on our overall schedule. After the submission of the MND to the board, there were no significant findings. Any findings were less than significant with mitigation. Those insignificant findings will be addressed as an appendix to the EIR, while the EIR will solely address the historic resource. The cost impact is $12,000 to the CEQA consultant and architectural historian to prepare the EIR. The approved budget was $100,000 for the CEQA filing to date. $73,000 has been spent for all remaining categories, so the additional $12,000 spending still puts us under our approved budget. In conclusion, there is an overall slight delay in our schedule for the CEQA filing, but no overall impact on project schedule. There is a cost impact of $12,000, but no overall impact to the budget. There are two steps now:

1.    Draft comes to the board on April 15th. If approved by the board to move forward, we file it with the county recorder and the state clearinghouse.

2.    45-day comment period opens up for anyone who wants to disagree with our finding that Allen Elementary School is historically significant, but we have no other choice. At the close of the 45-day period, we have to address any comments and those have to be included in the final EIR that comes back to the board for action on June 10th. If the board approves, it gets filed again in its final form, followed by another 45-day comment period.

Delivery Method:

At the February 12, 2020 board meeting, the Board of Trustees approved using the lease-leaseback delivery method for the construction contract, which means that we select our contractor based on best value, not on low bid. After they have been selected, it is an open book process where they bid out all of the subcontractors in a public bid fashion, looking at all of the subcontractor quotes. On projects over $5 million, lease-leaseback method is probably the most common delivery method.

 
The next action will be coming back on March 11th with a resolution from the legal team to start the process, after which we will begin pre-qualifying our general contractors. Pre-qualification is scheduled on a rubric by financial strength, safety record references, history of similar projects, history of litigation, etc., followed by an interview process in companion with the bidding of the general conditions.

Interface with the City:

We are working on our sewer, water and storm drain connections. Fortunately, we may be able to utilize the same storm drain connections that currently drain the site down in the southeast corner of the site. We can possibly use the same domestic water connection but our site currently has no fire suppression water. The only street that has a fire main, large enough to service the requirements is on Elm. There is a 60-inch Hetch Hetchy line running down that street and the 8-inch San Bruno line appears to be on the other side of it; we are currently vetting that right now. We have had two meetings with the Department of Public Works and city engineer, providing them with our initial utility connection drawings, discharge loads, and supply loads on both water and sewer. We are predicting that they may want a capacity study on the water and sewer. When we receive the information within the next two weeks, we will be able to move forward with that.

Budget:

Our updated budget is currently $59,013,638, sitting just below our $60 million budget. As part of our CEQA, we have got a traffic impact study with no significant findings and no measurable impacts on the service level at our existing intersections. The most impacted intersection prior to our project and post-project is Jenevein and El Camino. The topography survey was budgeted at $25,000. We are standing at $26,540, so the money will be moved from one budget category to another to correct the overage. This is a result of four residents whose side yards are on school property. We don’t believe it’s worth battling with the neighbors to regain the property, as it’s on a steep side hill; a fairly substantial retaining wall would be needed to have the parking lot. Within the next week, a cost should be configured in regards to obtaining the property. Originally, we were under budget with the initial survey; however, the property line issue increased costs by $1,540.

4. Bond Expenditures to Date:

Ms. Patricia Paulsen presented this item:

Bond funds were appropriately identified according to their accounting code structure to identify separately from the rest of the funds. For example, architect fees and engineering fees were charged to generic codes, like other types of planning costs, instead of the correct codes as seen in the expenditure categories. After the adjustments, this recaps the Measure X General Obligation Bonds of $79 million. The first series of the bond was issued back in February 2019 of $25 Million, $54 million remains in authorization, leaving us roughly $79 million after costs of issuance and debt service fees. We have calculated the interest income earned to date, allotting nearly $79.3 million to total funds for projects through January 31st. Our expenditures as of January 31st are $670,652 and the additional encumbrances, including the purchase orders and contracts the district has entered into, bringing our total commitments up to $4,385,025. Our total budgets remaining for current projects are $58,554,136. Our total budget subtotal is $62,939,161, leaving roughly $16.3 million available for additional projects. (The $62.6 million subtotal included all contingencies and escalation.) The $59 million as the new board approved budget will be reflected in the next recording period.

A new coding system has been set up for Allen, using a 6000 as the second field. The structure we are using is the first three codes identify the location, and then the second set of fields, the four digit code, identifies the project type. The Program Overall Summary Report shows “001-6000 - Allen - New Construction” with a budget total of $62.6 million. This

 
will be updated in relation to the current reduction. In the same project, $4.1 million is encumbered, $421,732.92 for disbursements for checks cut, $58.4 million for remaining budget, and $3.7 million for encumbered balance, which is the encumbered less disbursements. The encumbered balance is what is left in the district’s books on things that they have committed on that they have left to pay out on. The Project Overview Report shows how each project is being funded.

John Muir Project

Mr. Ruane addresses the John Muir portables and how it should be removed from the report; it is separate from the bond. He explains that everything done at John Muir was done before the bond issuance. However, John Muir talks about significant renovation-- restore buildings with older infrastructure, provide a space for play, improve traffic safety, and resolve awkward site conditions to improve security for children. Ultimately, it was intended to have 18 standard classrooms plus kindergarten. The project includes demolition of the existing multipurpose building, elimination of all district portables, and conversion of existing main office work room, library construction, and new classrooms. All expenditures on John Muir were done after the bonds were sold.

The two projects of the portables were:

1.   New portable at the site

2.   Deferred maintenance project to repair dry, rotted siding

Patricia says that the issues with John Muir’s funding can be easily resolved because it is within the current year. Wendy wants a debriefing at the next meeting regarding the John Muir issue. She thought that Measure X can be used to fund any facility repairs, renovations, and new projects. Candy Clark wants to review the bond language to know how the bond language was written. Mariana responds that if the siding project at John Muir is a deferred maintenance project, then it doesn’t belong in the Measure X Bond.

5.    Vacant CBOC Position

Candy Clark says that the vacancy will be brought back to the governing board to decide on how they want to proceed.

6.    Future Meeting Dates

Meetings have been held every 3 months, last Wednesday of the month. Emergency meetings can be held, if needed.

May 20, 2020

        August 26, 2020

November 18, 2020

        February 24, 2021

7.    General Public Comment

Discussions about absenteeism; concerns can be addressed in bylaws.

8.    Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 7:03pm

###

Back To PRRiechel.com


Editor:  Robert Riechel       Contact      WEB:  www.PRRiechel.com       Copyright 2020