Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contracts Architecture topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves five-year architect master services extension after debate over fees and timing
Summary
Peoria Public Schools voted 5–2 to extend a master services agreement with an architect firm despite board questions about an outdated 2022 contract template, unclear project lists and fee language tied previously to ESSER funding.
Peoria Public Schools’ Board of Education approved a five‑year extension of an architect master services agreement after lengthy discussion about contract language, fee structure and timing.
Board members expressed concern that the contract before them referenced 2022 language tied to ESSER funds and included a 7% fee provision that had applied to ESSER‑funded projects in the past. A board member said the district’s previous architect took 5% for comparable work and asked how much the extension could cost yearly. "My biggest concern seems to be that we're approving an unknown amount of money," one board member said during deliberations.
Representatives from the architecture firm told the board the contract is a standard master service agreement that establishes qualifications and past performance; fees are negotiated on a per‑project basis and the 7% figure had applied only to ESSER projects. "When a project is presented to us, we negotiate fees based on complexity and projected construction amount," the firm representative said.
Buildings and grounds committee members and the facilities director argued continuity mattered: the firm helped develop the district’s master facilities plan and has institutional knowledge of previously identified deficiencies. "If we decided to bring someone new in, they would have to start over," a committee member said.
CFO Mick Willis told the board that architect fees will depend on projects still to be identified and that finance staff do not yet have final figures for the 2026–27 or 2027–28 capital budgets.
After discussion, the board voted to approve the extension. Roll call recorded: Missus Kostick Aye; Mister Ivory Yes; Missus McConnell Aye; Missus Rose Nay; Missus Ross Yes; Missus Wilson Nay; President Wilson Aye (5–2). The motion carried.
Board members who voted against the extension said they wanted a refreshed agreement or updated attachments that removed outdated ESSER references and clarified staff listed in the contract. Supporters said the district can amend the master agreement language after approval and will negotiate project‑specific fees when work is assigned.
The board moved on to other items after the vote; no project work was authorized by this motion beyond the agreement extension.
Next steps: the firm said it would provide updated contract language and documentation if the board requested it; individual projects will return to the board for authorization and fee negotiation.
