Issuing separate contracts for sitework, structure and foundations, is the CM's way of implementing more concurrent construction activities while giving the Architect additional time to complete drawings for the building envelope and interior design. The contract included in your update doesn't assign risk, identify sufficient scope of work, and unit costs the contract is based on. Performing CM duties would be typical of a CM as Agent, but along with those duties should come a detailed estimate and basis of documents for the estimate of the scope of work. This contract identifies a dollar amount to be spent, but doesn't include the CM's estimate for work to clarify Scope of Work. It identifies Architectural services as a fee of 7% but doesn't say if that fee includes all professionals required to complete the services. For example, does the fee include civil, structural, mechanical, electrical engineering design services? There is a statement the CM is coordinating interior furnishings but doesn't specific who is handling the interior design of these furnishings. Great contract for the vendor. Hope the Owner has adequate Owner Representation Services to protect the citizens in the District from budget over-runs and Scope Reduction.
Ugh. There is a saying in poker that if you can't spot the fool at the table, you're the fool. D65 has a flashing neon sign over their heads advertising that they are the fools.
Given the numerous failures on the part of CC to advise the Board that they could not produce a design for the amount that the Board had already borrowed/was going to borrow to build the new school, I have zero optimism that CC is going to adequately protect the District.
Bob - what do you make of the failure to get the bid package out on time?
I worry about the way they're doing it. We always go with a "One throat to choke" approach on our company contracts otherwise, unless the scope of work and delineations of responsibility are exceptionally well-designed, you end up with incompatibilities and missed requirements in the final construction. It inevitably leads to very expensive change orders. Or as this picture eloquently puts it:
I think they're being pushed to this because they need to show progress milestones by certain dates for their loan covenants. This is the quickest, and most expensive, way to do it.
I've skimmed through a couple of the meeting minutes. They are very informative. Not for providing good justification for why they're doing what they're doing, but they do offer some insight into an overly ambitious group operating without a lot of oversight.
Possibly dumb question, but what's stopping them from doing another round of lease certificate financing to bridge the gap vs. what they already borrowed?
The reason they could do a lease certificate in the first place was because the Municipal Finance Reform act lets a school district mortgage a new build instead of going to the voters. But the catch is that the mortgage can't increase the overall tax payments - that's why they kept making that nonsensical bus savings claim, because without it, they're in violation of the law (which they are now). So they could do that again, but I'm not sure what they could make up this time to justify it and I'm not so sure the lawyers would be on board for this round.
I think the problem is that the recourse is civil - so someone would have to sue. I can't imagine anyone in town wants to be the person who sues to stop the fifth ward school.
The City did the same thing with reparations, which is basically: we can do whatever we want as long as nobody sues. But eventually, someone there sued them and now its a big mess.
This Board has been walking a financial tightrope and, with the almost complete lack of trust from the community, I see very little chance of them getting any referendum passed.
I don't know about that. I think most Evanston voters don't care that much about the Board or the financial shenanigans and would just vote yes to schools.
It didn’t past the last time. (Or two?) Why would a now jaded and lied to community vote any different?
On the other hand, did the board deviously understand that if they would go down this path we’d have a crushing issue hanging over our heads and have now choice?
Meh, I think I’m giving them too much credit. They can’t see two feet past their own face, and along with Horton they have only ever cared about helping themselves.
If they had lumped the two together as was originally the plan, both would have failed. It wa such a disaster back then —the more they talked to the community the more ground they lost. They were smart to “divide the issue” & get at least something out of the mess they served up.
Issuing separate contracts for sitework, structure and foundations, is the CM's way of implementing more concurrent construction activities while giving the Architect additional time to complete drawings for the building envelope and interior design. The contract included in your update doesn't assign risk, identify sufficient scope of work, and unit costs the contract is based on. Performing CM duties would be typical of a CM as Agent, but along with those duties should come a detailed estimate and basis of documents for the estimate of the scope of work. This contract identifies a dollar amount to be spent, but doesn't include the CM's estimate for work to clarify Scope of Work. It identifies Architectural services as a fee of 7% but doesn't say if that fee includes all professionals required to complete the services. For example, does the fee include civil, structural, mechanical, electrical engineering design services? There is a statement the CM is coordinating interior furnishings but doesn't specific who is handling the interior design of these furnishings. Great contract for the vendor. Hope the Owner has adequate Owner Representation Services to protect the citizens in the District from budget over-runs and Scope Reduction.
Bob - I'd love to chat with you - can you drop me an email tom@foiagras.com?
Ugh. There is a saying in poker that if you can't spot the fool at the table, you're the fool. D65 has a flashing neon sign over their heads advertising that they are the fools.
Given the numerous failures on the part of CC to advise the Board that they could not produce a design for the amount that the Board had already borrowed/was going to borrow to build the new school, I have zero optimism that CC is going to adequately protect the District.
Bob - what do you make of the failure to get the bid package out on time?
I worry about the way they're doing it. We always go with a "One throat to choke" approach on our company contracts otherwise, unless the scope of work and delineations of responsibility are exceptionally well-designed, you end up with incompatibilities and missed requirements in the final construction. It inevitably leads to very expensive change orders. Or as this picture eloquently puts it:
https://mosbybuildingarts.com/beware-culture-change-orders/
I think they're being pushed to this because they need to show progress milestones by certain dates for their loan covenants. This is the quickest, and most expensive, way to do it.
I laughed so loudly at that picture, spit out my coffee.
I've skimmed through a couple of the meeting minutes. They are very informative. Not for providing good justification for why they're doing what they're doing, but they do offer some insight into an overly ambitious group operating without a lot of oversight.
This is why big decisions should be made through referendums. The public deserves to vote on school openings and closures.
Interestingly, it appears Horton and the gang have reconstituted the SAP down in Georgia. According to Decaturist, the SAP meetings will be public and recorded. https://decaturish.com/2024/04/dekalb-school-officials-rebrand-redistricting-as-reimagining/
Possibly dumb question, but what's stopping them from doing another round of lease certificate financing to bridge the gap vs. what they already borrowed?
The reason they could do a lease certificate in the first place was because the Municipal Finance Reform act lets a school district mortgage a new build instead of going to the voters. But the catch is that the mortgage can't increase the overall tax payments - that's why they kept making that nonsensical bus savings claim, because without it, they're in violation of the law (which they are now). So they could do that again, but I'm not sure what they could make up this time to justify it and I'm not so sure the lawyers would be on board for this round.
If they're in violation of the law, why wouldn't they be charged as such?
I think the problem is that the recourse is civil - so someone would have to sue. I can't imagine anyone in town wants to be the person who sues to stop the fifth ward school.
The City did the same thing with reparations, which is basically: we can do whatever we want as long as nobody sues. But eventually, someone there sued them and now its a big mess.
This Board has been walking a financial tightrope and, with the almost complete lack of trust from the community, I see very little chance of them getting any referendum passed.
I don't know about that. I think most Evanston voters don't care that much about the Board or the financial shenanigans and would just vote yes to schools.
It didn’t past the last time. (Or two?) Why would a now jaded and lied to community vote any different?
On the other hand, did the board deviously understand that if they would go down this path we’d have a crushing issue hanging over our heads and have now choice?
Meh, I think I’m giving them too much credit. They can’t see two feet past their own face, and along with Horton they have only ever cared about helping themselves.
The 2017 Referendum Passed 80-20
The 2012 Fifth Ward School Referendum lost 45-55
If they had lumped the two together as was originally the plan, both would have failed. It wa such a disaster back then —the more they talked to the community the more ground they lost. They were smart to “divide the issue” & get at least something out of the mess they served up.
Thanks for the clarification. I was thinking of (and poorly referring to) the one to fund a new school.
Sadly, I think you are correct. There are so many people I know that are completely unaware of what is happening. I am not voting yes however.
On another note, does anyone know if Horton is paying his bills to the district on time still? I am curious if they are really looking for a CFO too.
CFO = still looking
Horton = not sure, I want to give it a few months before I check in on that again