Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves facilities-management agreement for Newberry campus; members press for maintenance safeguards
Summary
The Alachua County School Board unanimously approved a facilities management agreement for the Newberry campus June 9 that defines responsibility for portables, repairs, inspections, insurance and capital-project requests; board members pressed staff and attorneys on emergency repairs, vendor screening and prioritization.
The Alachua County School Board voted unanimously June 9 to approve a 17-page facilities management agreement (FMA) governing Alachua County Public Schools' ownership and management of the Newberry campus if it converts to a charter. The agreement lays out which modular units the district will remove, which the charter may lease, procedures for repairs and inspections, insurance responsibilities and the process for capital‑improvement requests.
Board members pressed staff and district counsel for clarity on several operational points: which modular units are district‑owned versus leased, who can declare emergency repairs, what vendor screening and permitting requirements apply, how the district will prioritize capital projects and what costs the district may bill back to the charter.
On modular units, staff said the FMA captures a snapshot of campus inventory as of May 1, 2025. The document lists 16 modular units on campus; staff and counsel said two of those are district‑owned and 14 are leased. The agreement also specifies the district plans to remove seven portables (including the two owned units) by June 30, 2026, unless the charter notifies the district earlier that it will assume leases.
For routine noncapital repairs, the agreement permits the charter to perform and invoice the district for work valued under $10,000 only after submitting a work order through the district's FMX system and giving the district a reasonable opportunity (five days) to respond. Director of Facilities Johnny Sanders said the five‑day window reflects regular district response expectations but does not guarantee completion within five days; procurement of parts or vendor scheduling may take longer. "We have to get the parts, we have to diagnose the problem, we might have to get a vendor in to help us," Sanders said.
The agreement allows either party to perform emergency repairs immediately without prior approval if the situation "endangers the health, safety, and welfare of students, staff, or the public, or jeopardizes a project." Counsel William Delaney noted the contract includes specific language listing HVAC systems among issues that can give rise to emergency repairs. Board members raised concern that the emergency clause could be used unilaterally and asked about remedies if the district believed an emergency designation was improper. Delaney said the district could deny payment for invoices it judged improper and that remedies would be available to the parties.
On insurance, risk manager Bart Brooks explained the district — as property owner — will be listed as an additional insured for property coverage while the charter must provide liability, workers' compensation and student accident coverage and provide proof of insurance prior to operations. Brooks said the arrangement is similar to a facility‑use model: "They have to give us proof that they have insurance... that declarations page that shows the coverage that they have." The board also clarified the district's retained 5% administrative withholding is separate from facilities cost‑recovery rates; the FMA allows the district to invoice routine time at $30 per hour or the actual highest hourly cost for district staff who perform reimbursable work.
The FMA requires semiannual inspections and gives the charter the ability to request capital improvements for inclusion in the district's plant survey and capital plan; language in the agreement says a request "shall not be unreasonably denied." District staff said prioritization of capital projects will remain data driven using the district's FMX facility condition assessments and that the charter has no express lane to move ahead of other district priorities.
Board members asked for additional clarity on vendor background checks and permitting, and staff said work requiring permits must follow the same permitting and inspection procedures the district follows for capital work. Several members asked staff to return with any needed clarifications, and the board approved the facilities agreement by motion. Motion by Ms. Surdon, seconded by Dr. McNeely; carried unanimously.
