[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6192889,"mediaKeyId","3875645-bfff5bf7215861f4b815e97e25a004e9","parentId",3875645,"title","Committee moves to update construction design guidelines and reviews summer project schedule","audioSeconds",2855,"startMs",1745000,"endMs",4600000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3875645-bfff5bf7215861f4b815e97e25a004e9&start=1745&end=4600","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3875645-bfff5bf7215861f4b815e97e25a004e9/thumbnail_1745000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6192889/Georgia/Committee-moves-to-update-construction-design-guidelines-and-reviews-summer-project-schedule","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6192889-f998ad954b5744a2e8c128c539acac40/orig.mp4?Expires=1777093476&Signature=eDwYTIDzxHwdIDzk3slo4P4iPj1atf93iVMRILnc7o0C9RUNyXyNTwU8C6iH2J~0ts4MBJmIUean07qagoryo-LaYlIScnCifMN7guMC4qvgPgVocMR0CuDqpnv-qTpiwlR7pJE~8c06EJOEQFWViwdj0fTFUGzbZ5HDh0JtgHKekF3nIYDHNqGK1nA2G~GjSyd0INdt6Dul5WYt6TQcGAYdtBdyHnFqNE9RYXkADFZjC75tvR68lLhf7AcC64fawWy3g7a2nZKz6O-k27t03XGyUd6voVTIh-peQeFYX7vAmrQ8bQ1PC1Uq5Tb1v-Gp-lT0vUaY245tqYWc2qn1aw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-06-18T08:02:39Z","article","Capital projects staff presented a schedule for summer construction work and a multi-step plan to revise the district's Construction Design Guidelines (CDG). Committee members urged timely adoption of core guideline elements and asked staff to maintain institutional records linking past trade-offs to future East Bloss decisions.

Lede: Staff described progress on multiple summer projects with target ribbon-cutting dates and a phased process to update the CDG so it better reflects district values on academic spaces, sustainability and community integration.

Nut graf: Committee members supported stakeholder engagement in the CDG revision process but several asked that the core values and high-priority divisions be finalized before major E‑5 work is bid so new policy guardrails can guide procurement and design.

Program schedule and project updates

- Staff reviewed summer tasks including final moves into Windsor Forest, Bloomingdale (target ribbon cutting Aug. 1), the DEH athletic complex (target TCO mid‑July but dependent on gas utility work), Montgomery swing-site readiness, the early learning center ribbon cutting (July 30), Savannah Arts gym floor replacement (target July 22), and other roofing and HVAC projects slated for summer work.

- Staff noted some schedule sensitivity: for example, the Field House TCO might slip because a gas utility line is required for an emergency generator; Pulaski site work required an Army Corps permit that staff said was recently approved and will allow modular installation to proceed.

Design guidelines revision plan

- Staff outlined a phased CDG review beginning with Divisions 0 and 01 (general requirements) and soliciting feedback from internal divisions, the CIC, design professionals, contractors and operations leadership. Staff proposed a target to have Division 0/01 ready for adoption by Dec. 1, 2025, and additional divisions ready for adoption by Feb. 1, 2026, with a full revised CDG in March 2026 followed by a quadrennial review cycle.

Committee feedback and directions

- Several members urged the committee to finalize and adopt core policy elements before major E‑5 projects are bid so procurement and design teams would have clear expectations. One member requested an institutional history folder for each project to track past trade-offs and decisions.

- Members clarified they do not want to remove technical standards; rather, they asked that the CDG emphasize locally important priorities (sustainability, life‑cycle cost, acoustic performance, walkability) while keeping required industry standards enforced through procurement and design review.

Discussion vs. decision

- Discussion only: Review of summer project status and the CDG revision schedule; robust debate on process timing and the content emphasis of the guidelines.

- Direction/assignment: Staff to accelerate stakeholder review where possible for core CDG divisions and to maintain project history records; staff to ensure a path for board review of core policy elements before major bid packages are released.

- Formal action: No adoption vote on CDG revisions at this meeting.

Ending

Staff will circulate meeting invitations for Bull Street historic/ programmatic input and send next CDG review invitations; members requested at least one focused discussion of core policy pillars at an upcoming CIC or informal board meeting so those elements can inform imminent procurements.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Capital Improvement Committee Meeting - June 17, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Capital projects staff outlined a plan to revise the district's construction design guidelines using a phased, stakeholder-driven process and provided a summer schedule of projects and expected ribbon-cutting dates; board members urged faster adoption of core policy elements before major E‑5 bids are issued.","taxTitle","Savannah-Chatham County, School Districts, Georgia","taxId",15361,"location","Georgia","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6192893,"Accounting director reports East Bloss fund balances, custodian bank and upcoming budget updates",85,203000,288000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3875645-bfff5bf7215861f4b815e97e25a004e9&start=203&end=288","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3875645-bfff5bf7215861f4b815e97e25a004e9/thumbnail_203000.jpg","/articles/6192893/Georgia/Accounting-director-reports-East-Bloss-fund-balances-custodian-bank-and-upcoming-budget-updates","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6192893-06c90eed22250b04f88e449a111724bc/orig.mp4?Expires=1777093476&Signature=lt3w2qtt-NAqZw2BIH7WnbEc4Qt05lQGPl0qZt7weoI7qudUhMu2wPkQc5ZFiUSAx7MW8yDqdic2S3KkLHIdr2XPr2JyjAqs71eIJihIAw7hb9Zc35JcDpK5CuK~aksfB1sRJSdxLIMMdCNxoVc9G8wHqV2rzXpoOPSGPdGzIST9PmjXWVVaP2E6Ne9tL4GhT8F2mQDcH18pFAozsUdSLNcB~Sy9aExhUKdKE4DU0euYTH0FFVqN-O7Kdl0qx~OVrvBVQAGK6uGBSIqR6jG3rAHn4l7K16KcBHu5GVvWgApdRNFJggVjJkGnhdAmCajzt92FdYu3cBAZRjlJIQBBgQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Connie Clark, director of accounting and finance, reviewed the district's May financial reports for the series of East Bloss capital funds and answered committee questions on custody of funds and unallocated balances.

Lede: Clark presented totals and month-to-month expenditures for East Bloss 2, 3 and 4 and said one previously approved May budget amendment reducing East Bloss 4 would be reflected in June financial statements.

Nut graf: The presentation covered recognized revenues, monthly expenditures by project, a reconciliation of unallocated funds in East Bloss 3 and the district's use of Georgia Fund 1 as the custody vehicle for major pooled funds.

Details

- Clark said East Bloss 2 is closed; total receipts and expenditures were reported and the project is reconciled as fully utilized. East Bloss 3 remains open with an unallocated balance of about $2,200,000 as of May 31.

- Clark said the board approved an amendment in May to reduce East Bloss 4's budget to $481,000,000; that change had not yet been included in May financial statements but would be posted with the June 30 financials.

- On where the funds are held, Clark explained the district uses Georgia Fund 1, a state investment pool, to custody major funds rather than a local bank. She said Georgia Fund 1 is commonly used by school districts, cities and counties and that it yields interest rates competitive with other options used by government entities.

- Committee members asked which local banks hold operating accounts. Clark said the district's primary local bank relationship is with \"Tourist\" and some student activity accounts are held at Bank of America; everyday district accounts remain in local banking relationships obtained via competitive requests for proposals that staff said run approximately every five years with one-year extensions up to seven years.

Discussion vs. decision

- Discussion only: The committee discussed custody arrangements, interest income, and whether local credit unions that serve teachers could be included in future banking relationships.

- Direction/assignment: Staff agreed to provide more information on Georgia Fund 1 and to follow up on whether additional local institutions could be included in future banking procurements.

- Formal action: Two procedural votes at the start of the meeting—approval of May minutes and approval of the agenda—passed unanimously (motions and seconds recorded). No budgets were adopted at this meeting; the East Bloss 4 amendment had been approved previously and will be reflected in the next financial statement.

Ending

Clark said staff will post the amended East Bloss 4 budget in the June 30 financials and will return with additional details about Georgia Fund 1 and local banking procurement practices on request.","Connie Clark, director of accounting and finance, presented May financials for the district's East Bloss funds, explained custody of funds in Georgia Fund 1, noted an approved May budget amendment that will post in June financials, and identified remaining unallocated balances.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6192896,"Committee reviews draft facility evaluation tool to prioritize capital projects",662,879000,1541000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3875645-bfff5bf7215861f4b815e97e25a004e9&start=879&end=1541","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3875645-bfff5bf7215861f4b815e97e25a004e9/thumbnail_879000.jpg","/articles/6192896/Georgia/Committee-reviews-draft-facility-evaluation-tool-to-prioritize-capital-projects","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6192896-113f73beabc7fe041b597fbe391fe55b/orig.mp4?Expires=1777093476&Signature=Fany5iOPzTDg1FL52jI78DU9FXaoYwUzrK5QrCTLO2BPoLPGt4fmsG2LSvv8vYS~PIVJuqv4OmIqwMVyAy-YPSf1ZKBmJ~l4wMpdJ1NbaDaI6c91xYltZCu~-XvWje0pM4JJw70mBJaA4rnLUVlxZxpJ5g9aD5H3CbFGJVlFHts1KRiZ7lLMXftCjXF7FMvl2wFCi-i3a3RaDhYVfcyXyCfBkPQ8ZpFZUu1JsyxEIFA2O0DSx9HFR25jTbkxozHvXBUPf-90WXz2xnNROXsv5a29STtP2YYfwpChSju6qOAZYqLr2QziEubzPS-iPsTwzfwvsx2EQi9yfWKhWDAi-w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Staff presented a draft evaluation tool intended to help the district prioritize facility and infrastructure projects by a numerical rubric.

Why it matters: The tool is intended to make project prioritization more transparent and data driven, producing a ranked list of projects for the next capital program and explaining to school stakeholders why one project appears ahead of another.

Tool structure and weighting

- Staff said the tool uses categories that include safety systems; infrastructure condition (the FCI score); instructional impact; project scope, complexity and readiness; past East Bloss commitments; monetary savings; site capacity; future planning; and technology support. Each category is scored 0–5 and then multiplied by a weight to produce a composite score.

- In the draft shown to the committee, infrastructure condition received the largest weight, site capacity 15%, and safety systems, project readiness, and past commitments each 10%. Future planning and technology were assigned 5% each. A worked example in the presentation produced composite scores and a ranked example list of a new elementary, an HVAC replacement and a gym renovation.

Committee feedback and directions

- Several committee members asked staff to raise the weighting for future planning, noting rapid housing growth in some parts of the county and the need to anticipate enrollment pressures. \"As soon as we build them, they're over capacity,\" one member said when describing West-side development.

- Members asked staff to consider where sustainability and carbon‑reduction goals should appear in the rubric. Staff agreed to consider adding sustainability either as a distinct category or embedded in infrastructure and life-cycle cost scoring.

- Board members asked for accompanying timeline and communications materials so principals and community members can see where a project sits in a broader multi-school timeline and why a given project is not ranked first.

- Staff said the tool is a draft and will be revised based on committee feedback; it will guide scheduling after the committee approves the form and weights.

Discussion vs. decision

- Discussion only: Committee provided feedback on weights and categories and asked for sustainability and stronger future planning emphasis.

- Direction/assignment: Staff was asked to revise the draft to reflect the committee's feedback, include explanation slides that show how scores translate into a timeline, and return with a revised rubric for approval.

- Formal action: None. The committee did not vote to adopt the tool at this meeting.

Ending

Staff said they will revise the evaluation tool and bring an updated version for the committee's further consideration; no prioritization rollouts or schedule changes were approved at this meeting.","Staff presented a draft E‑5 evaluation tool that scores projects on infrastructure condition, instructional impact, project readiness and other categories; committee members asked for higher weight for future planning and for sustainability to be included.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6192900,"Capital Improvements Committee debates campus fencing design, timeline and community input",1173,1763000,2936000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3875645-bfff5bf7215861f4b815e97e25a004e9&start=1763&end=2936","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3875645-bfff5bf7215861f4b815e97e25a004e9/thumbnail_1763000.jpg","/articles/6192900/Georgia/Capital-Improvements-Committee-debates-campus-fencing-design-timeline-and-community-input","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6192900-ed05eeac086bd50df9b64ac9bfe560f8/orig.mp4?Expires=1777093476&Signature=ClDO4n73M1CJKjJisFxLgSdrhDhTjjB610djgqKhdaxyTrFgs9AFqR44TVAnoMjGzQyKN~s871AFcflAQe6gRrOdCI83olvW-an9hAJcqHboL2COCzGWCfNqVmNHdSsh1gGxdi2xuviZMZXlLJsbo-V0J1lhM-P5F1wrryZYp~0zQDP9W7TQufv1iLLUE1wSPUb4XybD1LWZgzOBKD7fvKoL8YixN6mQBol8c5~529Np3lqHNnMTvx7I2H1jWDZNJ9DN9HW4g~O3oi3EtS7UEJ1jDWfIIrg4z77LRvIeoekb87vWKKpFRHIGDc2TDt6f-xflJWvjbf9NmbK6xcSP-Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Committee members spent the meeting weighing whether to add perimeter fencing at district campuses, how fencing should look and who should be consulted before bids are issued.

The discussion centered on three linked questions: which campuses should receive fencing, how fencing should be designed so it does not look \"prison like,\" and how to engage principals, teachers and neighborhoods on site-specific plans. Capital projects staff said no fencing contracts have been awarded and said staff would not move forward to award any contract until the committee reached consensus on scope and design and campus police had completed site reviews.

Why it matters: Committee members said fencing is a security layer but noted it carries costs, design trade-offs and potential community concerns. Several members urged a standardized, transparent process to decide where fencing is appropriate and what the design standards should be before work is bid and awarded.

Key points from the meeting

- Staff said four campuses had been identified as priority candidates in earlier briefings (Beach, Jenkins, Butler, New Hampstead) and that preliminary site proposals exist, but no contracts have been executed. Capital projects staff said they will not award contracts until the board gives direction and campus police complete site recommendations.

- Multiple committee members said fencing decisions should be site-specific and guided by campus police risk assessments, principal input and community engagement. Several members said they do not want fencing that makes campuses appear institutional or \"prison like.\"

- Members asked staff to coordinate with the City on pedestrian safety projects where fencing intersects with public streets. Committee members cited New Hampstead as an example where a crosswalk and traffic controls are urgent because students walk from nearby neighborhoods.

- Committee members repeatedly requested a clear timeline. Capital projects staff committed to delivering a meeting schedule and timeline for the prioritized campuses by the middle of next week and to coordinate a site-review meeting with campus police and staff. Staff also said that, because of procurement lead times and vendor schedules, installation before the start of the school year is unlikely.

Discussion vs. decision

- Discussion only: Members debated whether fencing should be installed at all campuses, how to balance aesthetics with security, and how to sequence community outreach. Several members raised concerns about equity and the perception of differential treatment among neighborhoods.

- Direction/assignment: Staff was directed to (1) obtain and present campus police site recommendations and design options, (2) map which campuses are immediate priorities and which are candidates for later phases, (3) coordinate with the City on crosswalks where student routes intersect public streets, and (4) provide a timeline for next steps by the middle of next week.

- Formal action: No motion to fund, bid or award fencing work was made or approved at this meeting.

What the committee left unresolved

Committee members emphasized the need for principal- and community-level input and for design guidelines that balance safety, aesthetics and life-cycle cost. Staff and campus police will return with site-specific recommendations and a timeline before any procurement action is taken.

Ending

Capital projects staff said they will schedule the site-review meetings and provide the committee an implementation timeline and next meeting date; no procurement actions will be taken until the committee signals consensus on scope and design.","Committee members, campus police and capital projects staff discussed where and how to add perimeter fencing at district campuses, agreed to seek more design guidance and community input, and pledged a timeline for next steps but did not authorize construction contracts.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee moves to update construction design guidelines and reviews summer project schedule

Accounting director reports East Bloss fund balances, custodian bank and upcoming budget updates

Committee reviews draft facility evaluation tool to prioritize capital projects

Capital Improvements Committee debates campus fencing design, timeline and community input