District staff reported that the high‑school roof project had reached the prequalification stage required by procurement rules. The superintendent explained a four‑member prequalification committee had been named to review bidders’ qualifications and that the prequalification notice would be posted on the central register for two weeks. The superintendent said the prequalification review would focus on bidder responsibility and licensing rather than product design choices.

Committee members discussed whether to form a separate advisory committee for the roof project to gather additional community expertise. Supporters said a short‑term, narrowly focused advisory body could allow subject‑matter experts and community members to provide input without turning the facilities subcommittee into a parallel working group. Others cautioned that adding advisory layers could slow the timeline and must be carefully structured to comply with procurement law; one member noted the schedule for schematic design, OPM (owner’s project manager) participation, and procurement steps is prescribed and time sensitive.

The superintendent and members agreed to discuss advisory‑committee mechanics with legal counsel and the OPM at an upcoming meeting and to consider whether shared membership with the facilities subcommittee or a separate short‑term advisory body would best balance community input and schedule adherence. No formal vote was taken; members emphasized keeping the project on the needed timeline so work can proceed next summer.

Ending: Committee members said they will bring the procurement and advisory‑committee question to the facilities subcommittee and consult legal/OPM guidance before creating any additional committee.