coen Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Proceedings of the Board of Trustees District No. 2, Yellowstone County High School District No. 2, Yellowstone County Billings, Montana June 2, 2009 Call to Order The Special Board Meeting of the Board of Trustees of School District No. 2, Yellowstone County, Montana, and the High School District, Yellowstone County, Montana was duly held at The Lincoln Center, 415 North 30th Street, Billings, Montana on Tuesday, June 2, 2009. The meeting was called to order at 12:45 p.m. by Chair Malcolm Goodrich. Pledge of Allegiance was said. Roll Call Those attending were: Trustees Malcolm Goodrich, Barb Bryan, Teresa Stroebe, Kathy Aragon, Joel Guthals, Mary Jo Fox and Peter Gesuale; Clerk Leo Hudetz, Superintendent Jack Copps, Nancy Hines, Kathy Olson, Dave Williams, Dan Martin, Scott Anderson, Thomas Harper and Rich Whitney. Guests included Jeff Greenfield and Becky Shay. Trustee Dawn Achten was excused. Communication from the Public There was a written statement from Sandy Abraham which was also on Board email. Appointment Process for Replacement Trustee The Clerk explained that there are two applicants for replacement trustee: Pamela Ellis and Joyce Weber. Interviews will be set up with the screening committee of Malcolm Goodrich, Mary Jo Fox and Kathy Aragon. A recommendation will be made to the Board on June 15th. MTSBA advised that this is within the 60 day time requirement for filling a vacant trustee position. Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Facility Issues This subcommittee was recommended at the May 18, 2009 Board meeting to get information together and present information to the Planning & Development Committee in the fall. Trustees recommended to this subcommittee were Kathy Aragon, Barb Bryan and Peter Gesuale. The Chair asked if any other trustees would like to serve on the subcommittee. Trustee Stroebe would like to know the scope of the committee and if there will be high school involvement, since she is a high school trustee only. The subcommittee will report back at the July meeting. Trustee Guthals explained that Board policy states that high school trustees may serve on any committee. This subcommittee will discuss high school issues as well as elementary. When it goes to the Board level, high school trustees may only vote on those issues involving high school. Joel Guthals made a motion to appoint Trustees Aragon, Bryan and Gesuale to the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Facility Issues. Peter Gesuale seconded the motion. Those voting in favor of the motion were Trustees Goodrich, Bryan, Stroebe, Aragon, Guthals, Fox and Gesuale. The motion passed unanimously. The subcommittee is asked to determine if there is a need for an independent consultant for a facilities study to examine range of options, costs, time, etc. Also, they will review tasks and scope and report recommendations to the Board. Malcolm Goodrich reminded them to keep in mind that this is a follow-up to the Broadwater, McKinley and Cottonwood community-based study groups. Kathy Aragon made a motion that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Facility Issues investigate independent consulting options and report its recommendations to the Board at the July 20, 2009 Board meeting; and to determine the scope, task, timing and investigate all options for independent contractors for the long term. Joe Guthals seconded the motion. The Chair called for discussion on the motion. The Chair stated that if additional time is needed, it will be given. Those voting in favor of the motion were Trustees Bryan, Stroebe, Aragon, Guthals, Fox, Gesuale and Goodrich. The motion passed unanimously. Federal Stimulus Grant for Quick Start Energy Audits and Projects The Budgeting For Results Committee voted to approve the Quick Start Energy Program. Superintendent Copps stated that a process was used to put together these administrative recommendations and asks the Board to look at timelines and to start moving forward. No other school districts in the state are in a position to make proposals at this time. There is $121 million in deferred maintenance. This was shared with legislators. Secondly, the Daylis Stadium heating system replacement cannot be completed by the deadline of September 30, 2009 so that project should be removed from the list. Maintenance projects were approved by the Board. Rich Whitney presented an updated list of prioritized projects. He went through the list of Quick Start projects and their annual savings as well as simple payback. Simple payback is calculated from the annual savings. Some of the project amounts have been refined as well. He stated that the EMS (Energy Management System) is based on failure of the 1980 system that we can’t get parts for. The total will be $3,751,853 for all the audit and Quick Start Projects, without the Daylis project. The proposed Energy Management Action Plan (EMAP) includes a detailed list of things we can do in the schools to increase energy savings, such as the West High distribution line. The $300 thousand proposal is for implementing the energy saving suggestions. Kathy Aragon questioned if that would qualify under a completed energy audit. Mr. Whitney stated that the Department of Commerce has told us that they will accept system evaluations; they will allow those for specific projects in lieu of an entire building audit. There has been an entire building energy audit at Central Heights. Joel Guthals asked if there will be a list of EMAP projects. Mr. Whitney stated that there will be. Mr. Guthals asked if the $300 thousand was primarily materials and labor. Mr. Whitney stated that it would be Energy Management equipment and control type projects. Mr. Goodrich asked for an explanation of the need for the audits. It was explained that in order to have the projects approved, an energy audit must be done first. The Department of Commerce will pay for the audits that they approve. There is a September 30, 2009 deadline for Quick Start grant projects. The question is whether they need to be completed by that date or obligated. There needs to be a likelihood that the projects can be completed on or before September 30, 2009. Thomas Harper stated that they just need to be obligated as for other grant programs. We will have 30 days to complete the projects, or by the end of October. Rich Whitney stated that the deadline will be put in the bid documents. Peter Gesuale asked about total availability of funds. Jack Copps stated that we don’t know. There is a total of $15 million statewide for the Quick Start Projects and we should get 8 percent of that amount but the Department of Commerce is not obligated to release any of the money, although there may be some advantage to applying first. Mr. Gesuale asked for more clarification of the project selection process. Why are some critical needs placed on the list and not others? This list is less than five percent of the total projects needed by the District. Administrators presented critical issues in their buildings and engineering and architectural firms have been advising on these. Rich Whitney stated that the Quick Start Projects have to be energy related. All of the projects on this list are systems that have failed or to the point of failing where the District has a danger of incurring additional costs from that failure. Barb Bryan stated that usually Energy Management Systems are replaced after other energy projects are completed. Mr. Whitney stated that even though the windows have a longer payback, there is definitely an educational value to replacing them. Jack Copps stated that we are proposing more than we are going to get and we need to get the projects going and have them done in September. One of the reasons windows and roofs are included in these projects is because we need to have the projects done by September. Nancy Hines stated the legislators want the entire project completed in the time frame. Joel Guthals reviewed the process the administration went through and the criteria to qualify for Quick Start grant awards and picked the ones which would produce the best “bang for the buck” and would have the best chance to get it approved. He questioned the deferred maintenance column in the handout and where the other funds are going to come from. Jack Copps said there is also a $20 million state-wide grant available for application and that we certainly are going to be receiving at least some of that money. It’s not a competitive grant. The deferred maintenance component will be provided through the additional grant/application. Mr. Guthals asked if it was the administrative recommendation that we go forward with the audits right away or that we apply for the audit and get the awards; in other words do we obligate the District right away or do we await approval? Mr. Copps stated that other districts around the state are first of all trying to minimize the risk when they make applications to have some reasonable assurance that they are going to, in fact, get these projects, and then they are paying for the audit up front and being reimbursed for the audits. There is the risk that some things may not be approved. The audit still may be beneficial down the road. It is viewed as a reimbursable cost. Mr. Copps thinks we should go ahead with the audits because unless you can submit an audit with your application, you have no assurance that your application is going to be reviewed. Ms. Bryan asked how other districts are minimizing the risk of losing money spent on audits. Mr. Copps stated it is by conversations with Department of Commerce. There have been a lot of phone calls to the Department of Commerce, and they have been very slow in starting up this program and getting ready for it. The grants are based upon energy savings. If you have a good guarantee that you are, in fact, going to be providing some energy savings, you have a good chance that project is going to be approved, unless you are submitting too many projects. He feels some assurance that all of these projects will qualify. The only question is whether we are trying to submit too much. Barb Bryan asked if the $20 million pot was for everybody statewide. Mr. Copps stated that it is for everyone statewide. It is an application and it is not competitive. It is going to be based on quality educator. It is $1,580 for every teacher that we have in the district. We will apply for it, and we have reasonable expectation that we would receive the money, but it is not up to us to distribute the money. Some of that money may not be distributed so we may end up with less than what we hope for. Thomas Harper stated that in the high school district we will get somewhat less than $700 thousand and elementary district a little bit less or right around $1.2 million. Kathy Aragon asked if someone had spoken to Department of Commerce regarding some of these grant-related questions. Jack Copps stated that the Department of Commerce is very careful about what they are telling us. They’ve only gotten to this about one month ago and they’ve been talking about appointing someone who is going to make this thing work. They don’t know exactly how it’s going to work and they just really are not answering questions. In the end it doesn’t harm us at all to have a project that relies upon both Quick Start money and deferred maintenance funds. Malcolm Goodrich asked for some motions. Mary Jo Fox made a motion to approve the elementary Quick Start energy audits and projects. Peter Gesuale seconded the motion. Mr. Gesuale asked about the energy audit costs and whether or not we would be doing these anyway or just to qualify for the grants. Mr. Copps stated that they are being done only to qualify for the grants. Mr. Copps stated that there are only certain energy audit companies and people are recognized by the state. Barb Bryan asked if there would be a cost savings on doing an energy audit on just one school and then doing those projects, instead of doing multiple audits. Rich Whitney stated that it would not maximize our annual dollar savings, i.e. Senior High EMS has a payback of 1.33 years and the windows have a payback of 66 years. Ms. Bryan stated that while it is true that we don’t maximize our dollar savings on an annual basis, over the 66 years, you are saving maybe $6 million. It is important to look at the savings over the life of the project and not just the first few years. With regard to the elementary projects, one of her concerns is in an integrated design process, EMS comes last. You want to lower your load by having light shades, maximize HVAC, and then size the equipment for the reduced load that you’ve accomplished. You may be getting EM systems that you ultimately find you don’t need or you may be managing energy use that you no longer have. Although those management systems have a fairly quick payback, we may be spending time and money on optimizing systems that we really don’t need. Ms. Bryan stated that the other portion we need to look at is the public relations factor. There is PR value to consider when replacing windows because it directly impacts kids in classrooms. Ms. Bryan would like to lean toward more things that have a direct impact on kids that are 100 percent reimbursable, such as window replacement. She suggested simplifying this with a few backup plans so we are not conducting ten audits, but maybe conducting four audits or three audits. Do comprehensive audits and do it according to energy efficiency standards, we want the audit to tell us what we need to do to bring these buildings up to energy efficiency standards. When you combine things in one building you really can get a result that might impress the Department of Commence and also impress the public. Joel Guthals asked for clarification that as a result of the grant application are we also asking for reimbursement of the audit costs? Can we get the audit costs covered by the deferred maintenance? Rich Whitney thinks the audit costs could be covered with deferred maintenance dollars. We could choose to do that. Deferred maintenance funds follow the per educator formula but Quick Start does not. Potentially the entire list of projects could be approved. Jack Copps stated that there is a risk of proposing more than we can get and that we may lose the audit money spent for those additional projects. Thomas Harper said there is a chance of getting the audit approved and the associated projects may not be approved. Joel Guthals stated that the Energy Management Systems are in danger of catastrophic failure. We have EM Systems in the schools that could fail at any time. If we have catastrophic failure, it would have a huge impact on students. Malcolm Goodrich called for the question: Motion before us is to approve elementary Quick Start energy audits and projects. Those voting in favor of the motion were Trustees Barb Bryan, Peter Gesuale, Kathy Aragon, Mary Jo Fox and Malcolm Goodrich. The motion passed unanimously. Mary Jo Fox moved to approve high school Quick Start energy audits and projects. Joel Guthals seconded. Peter Gesuale asked if Daylis Stadium was included. Jack Copps stated that the engineering firm is saying that they cannot satisfy the September 30 deadline so Daylis will not be part of the Quick Start application process. Joel Guthals stated that he feels it would be a good idea for us to apply for the Daylis audit costs so we will be set for that for the next go-round. He is concerned that Daylis is another catastrophic failure waiting to happen, then we will be shutting down Daylis when it is most inconvenient to the public. We could just apply for the $7 thousand. Jack Copps has no objection. Rich Whitney thinks we should consider that audit request. You can submit an audit without a project. The motion was amended with agreement from Ms. Fox and Mr. Guthals to include the audit costs for Daylis Stadium heating system replacement. The vote on the amendment was called. Trustees voting in favor of the amendment were Malcolm Goodrich, Mary Jo Fox, Joel Guthals, Peter Gesuale, Barb Bryan, and Kathy Aragon. Teresa Stroebe opposed the motion to amend. The amendment passed. The vote was called for the original motion for the high school Quick Start energy audits and projects. Trustees voting to approve the high school Quick Start energy audits and projects were Mary Jo Fox, Joel Guthals, Peter Gesuale, Kathy Aragon, Teresa Stroebe and Malcolm Goodrich. Barb Bryan was opposed. The motion passed. Mary Jo Fox moved to authorize the Superintendent to apply for, enter into agreement with the State of Montana, and administer these grants. Joel Guthals seconded the motion. Trustees Mary Jo Fox, Joel Guthals, Kathy Aragon, Peter Gesuale, Barb Bryan, Teresa Stroebe and Malcolm Goodrich voted in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:45 p.m. _________________________________ Malcolm Goodrich, Chair _______________________________ Nancy Coe, Recorder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.