Darshan T. provided the Board of Trustees with an update on his meeting earlier that day with Dan Halloran, Executive Director of LFD. The purpose of the meeting was to address several operational concerns Darshan T. had raised.

One of the main topics discussed was the IT services agreement. Darshan T. explained that during the April 9 board meeting, the school had presented a document outlining the core IT services expected. Dan H. indicated he wasn’t familiar with the specifics of that list. Darshan T. clarified that the list had been developed by himself, Tony S., the Director of IT Services, and Susan P., and that it simply reflected the services currently in place. The goal was to make sure those same services would remain under any future agreement.

Dan H. responded that if the document merely formalized existing operations, he would have no issue agreeing to it and signing a contract. Darshan T. added that if LFD ultimately declines to move forward, the school is prepared to shift the IT department under its own management. He noted that Dan H.  didn’t object to this plan and expressed appreciation that staff would retain their jobs and not face layoffs.

Regarding custodial services, Darshan T. reported that the proposed $868,000 cost encompasses more than just cleaning. It also includes maintenance, supervisor, staff salaries and benefits, as well as traffic control and crossing guard duties. Based on this broader scope, Darshan T. acknowledged that the price seemed reasonable, provided all of those elements are clearly spelled out in the agreement. He added that this clarity would allow the school to move ahead with contracting LFD for those services as well.

Darshan T. shared that he was encouraged by the progress made and felt both the IT and custodial service agreements could move forward, pending completion and approval of the necessary documents.

Dave D. asked for confirmation that if the scope of services is clearly outlined in writing, then LFD will be responsible for providing those services. Darshan T. confirmed that this understanding was correct.

Jose T. inquired about the length of the proposed contract. Darshan T. explained that while LFD is seeking a five-year agreement, he is recommending a one-year term instead, citing uncertainty about the future and the possibility that the school may choose to bring those departments in-house. He also mentioned an alternative option of a one-year contract with the potential for renewal based on performance. Under this arrangement, LFDCS would conduct a satisfaction survey 90 days before the contract expires. The results of the survey would help determine whether the school chooses to renew the agreement for another year.  

Chris N. asked whether Darshan T. and Dan H. had discussed LFD’s financial stability and LFD's ability to make payroll. Darshan T. responded that they did not go into detail on that topic. However, he did ask Dan H. for some assurance, seeing that the school would like to make sure they are entering an agreement with a financially stable organization. Dan H. did not provide specific details but indicated that LFD is making progress and has access to a line of credit if needed. Chris N. followed up by asking if Dan H. spoke on any discussions LFD had with the bank, and Darshan T. stated that no.

Chris N. asked for a motion to enter executive session to discuss the potential sale, lease or acquisition of the properties the school is currently occupying and renting from LFD. He believes it is important to have these discussions in executive session to protect the best interests of the school. 

Jose T. asked Darshan T. if LFD could add more custodial staff without increasing the cost to the school. He shared, as a parent, that his sons have mentioned the bathrooms are not very clean and that there’s only one stall in each. He also asked who is responsible for making sure the custodial staff is doing their job. Darshan T. said he would bring the issue to the Facilities Director’s attention.

Anthony C. recommended that another board meeting be arranged, given the pace things are moving along. The Trustee members discussed adding another Board Meeting for June 18 at 5:30 pm via Zoom to further discuss lease negotiations and services agreements. 

Dave D. praised Darshan T. and Anthony C. for their efforts and the progress they’ve made in resolving misunderstandings. He noted that it’s now clear an agreement would be beneficial for all parties, something that wasn’t evident just two weeks ago