Agenda - 11-05-2015 - 6-a - Minutes

Browse Search

8 1 Commissioner Jacobs said the third party could review all projects, without knowing 2 which district they belong to, and then present findings to the Board of County Commissioners 3 who could take the highest ranked projects to the voters by way of a bond. He said he knows 4 there are other variables that may be factored in, such as the average daily membership (ADM) 5 and the political components. He said it could be a more emotionless process if a third party 6 was used. 7 Commissioner Pelissier said she thought Commissioner Jacobs' suggestion was an idea 8 to pursue, since the State recently decided to use empirical ratings with the transit issues in 9 order to take out the political ramifications. She added that this could be a better way to 10 convince the public with a bond. 11 Commissioner Price asked if this suggestion would be a duplication of what CHCCS has 12 already done. 13 Chair McKee said no, but rather this would take projects presented to the Board tonight 14 by both districts, and let a third party objectively review and rank the projects based on the five 15 criteria. 16 Commissioner Price said the districts had already worked with consultants. 17 Chair McKee said this is open for discussion. 18 James Barrett said a criterion he felt was missing was logistics. He said there are some 19 projects that are logistically simpler than others, and may therefore take priority. 20 Commissioner Jacobs said it was not in his criteria, but that does not mean that it cannot 21 be added. He said agreed upon criteria would be needed that apply to both districts across the 22 board. 23 Donna Coffey asked if hiring a consultant would do the same thing as a capital needs 24 advisory task force, which has been used in past bond referendums. 25 Chair McKee said their Board of County Commissioners has not had this discussion yet, 26 but from his standpoint this could be an alternative to such a committee. He said the consultant 27 would be unaffiliated with either district or the Board of County Commissioners. He said 28 another question is whether bond funds are allocated based on ADM or on a project basis. He 29 said Commissioner Jacobs' suggestion might lead to funding being distributed more on a 30 projects basis. He said the discussion is about getting feedback on this suggestion. 31 Commissioner Burroughs said she is interested in this suggestion, but she served with 32 CHCCS when this process started. She said the issue of phasing has been part of the process 33 from the beginning, whereas the OCS's projects are smaller projects; so she is uncomfortable 34 comparing apples and oranges. She said these are elected school boards, and she is 35 uncomfortable with encroaching on their processes. 36 Steve Halkiotis said he would like to hear more about this suggestion, and he has been 37 through several bond processes. He said on past capital needs committees, there have always 38 been advocates for a variety of needs. He said he does not have a dog in this fight, but is only 39 interested in the students in both districts. He said if there is not a united front going forward, 40 this bond may fail. He said the more attractive the bond package is, the more people will come 41 out to support it. 42 Steve Halkiotis said he appreciated the suggestion, but asked if there is good reason to 43 bring in a third party when there has been success in the past with a collaborative effort, by 44 using committees for the bond process. 45 Chair McKee said the projects that have been presented cannot be accomplished with 46 $125 million, and this suggestion is a way to prioritize projects. He said he hoped to generate 47 discussion, not to start a fight. 48 Commissioner Jacobs responded to Donna Coffey's question, saying the Board of 49 County Commissioners has not always agreed with the bond process, but this is the process. 50 He said both school systems have presented a more detailed assessment than has ever be 51 done previously.