• Mr. Stewart is our new director of facilities. Mr. Stewart comes with experience in working with schools and charter schools. 
• We have completed all critical items and were ready for the OPSB inspection/walk-through, will continue to work on non-critical items. 
•  AT asked about the 41 items revealed by the OPSB inspection, would we have been able to know what they would find? SW stated that we are moving from the reactive to more preventive maintenance approach. 
• DB asked if any of the items on the list were safety related such as fire drill alarm, etc. LL explained that that level of safety is addressed by the firefighting department. They come regularly to check on our alarms and safety procedures and we do our own drills in compliance with the regulations.  

Staff and faculty has met with them twice already. The first meeting included stakeholders from the community and board members. The second meeting included staff and faculty members to discuss the need of every space in the building as it is and the needs observed by faculty and staff. 

The architecture students will work on their visioning part with the feedback provided by staff and faculty. 


 

AT asked the committee members their feedback regarding engaging a consultant to evaluate our facility in order to have more information at the time of negotiating the building with OPSB. 
AT is suggesting that the committee votes on recommending the administration to seek professional services to assess our facility. 
AT is recommending that administration seeks proposals and includes this item on the operational budget to make the recommendation to the board for approval. 
AT is recommending that a limit of the price on these services is established by the board. 
AT explained that there is a fine line between the professional writing the RFQ and those who submit for the bid. 
AT asked if for professional services we need to select the less expensive option? It is on our best interest to select on qualification rather than just cost. 
SB asked what precludes us from having AT directly reach out to professionals in the matter to come and execute an assessment? 
SR explained that board members have to vote on it for transparency purposes. 
KK asked how what the Small's center is currently doing fits into it? AT explained that the Small's center is doing is more focused on the functionality and aesthetics of the building than the real state of the facility. The Small's center will present to us a vision plan for our space and then we can determine what can be done under the current lease/agreement of the facility. 

AT will include in the Finance committee meeting agenda a recommendation to the board to direct the administration to budget and procure professional services for the assessment of the school facilities.  This is a joined effort with the finance committee. 

LEGACY PARK - We've had conversations about the current state of the plan. There is still a need for a fiduciary for the project to continue the efforts forward. They have spoken about getting the project done over summer time so it is not as intrusive to the learning environment.