Minutes 10-21-2025-Business Meeting

Browse Search

29 John Roberts said it is not a requirement to have two. He said that it was a suggestion, but the termination language could provide that if one party withdraws, the other two parties remain in the agreement and that the withdrawal has no impact on the other parties. Chair Bedford said that's better and would be consistent. Commissioner Carter said she was glad to see the quarterly engagement in the agreement. She said the work will be with the working group, but she would like to see additional language stating that following every quarterly meeting, the designated liaison for each party will present an update at a business meeting of their respective governing board. She said it helps for public accountability. Chair Bedford asked if that would be added as 3.08. Commissioner Carter suggested 3.06. Chair Bedford said she liked the language, but they cannot direct what the school boards put on their agenda. John Roberts said they could use the words "should" or"may" rather than "will." He said if the school boards choose not to then they don't have to. Vice-Chair Hamilton said she was surprised by the scope of the ILA, given that they had discussed not hiring a program manager. She said that the ILA was to establish the core team that would focus on the big bond projects to make sure they are receiving information in case there are unexpected cost increases because of external issues. She said she sees tension in the current process for the capital investment plan and the schools bringing smaller projects to staff and getting them approved. She said that the core team was for the big, broad projects so they can be responsive to the community in how the money is being spent. She said she would like to see the ILA stay with the bond projects. Chair Bedford asked for clarification on Vice-Chair Hamilton's concerns about program management because the Board discussed hiring a county employee to work with the program. Vice-Chair Hamilton said the ILA should focus on the big projects for the bond, not for projects at $250,000. She said the county position which was described as an analyst is coordinating information. She said the schools are each hiring the project managers, but the county is not. She said they should focus on the big projects and not micro-manage. She said that collaboration between the county and school districts has improved over the years and that the ILA codifies it. She said in 3.08, she wanted to specify quarterly communications with the public. Chair Bedford said that would fit in with 3.08, which states that the county will create a website that tracks projects, progress, and spending. Vice-Chair Hamilton said that the website would not be enough. She said they should communicate quarterly with the public. Commissioner Fowler said she was supportive of the comments emailed from the school board chairs earlier in the day. She said she agreed with Vice-Chair Hamilton on going with major projects. She said the CMAR should just be done with major projects. She said they should rework the language about change orders and the minimum amount. Commissioner Carter asked how major projects would be defined. Kirk Vaughn said that there are three buckets for funding capital. He said the biggest bucket is for major projects, such as major school renovation or replacement. He said the next is high priority needs, such as annual replacement of components like roofs or HVAC systems. He said the third component is everything else. He said both the major projects and the high priority needs are budgeted on a project basis and that is already happening through the CIP process. Chair Bedford said since there is not a dollar cut off, they could delete the minimum of $250,000. Commissioner Carter said she did not know what the division is between the buckets. Kirk Vaughn said that is set in the school capital funding policy. He said the funding for major projects is the bond and pay-go. He said any leftover bond funds could be used for high