Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Actions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MPUSD board approves easement, audit and bond‑management tools; hears construction delivery briefing for Measure A
Summary
Trustees unanimously approved a PG&E easement for Seaside Middle School, accepted the 2024–25 independent audit with one corrected state finding, and approved bond‑management software; the board also heard a technical briefing on construction delivery options (design‑bid‑build, lease‑leaseback, design‑build, alternative design‑build and best‑value procurement) to inform Measure A planning.
At its Jan. 27 meeting the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District board took several formal actions and received technical advice on construction procurement ahead of Measure A planning.
Votes and formal actions - Resolution 25/26‑12 (PG&E public utility easement at Seaside Middle School) was adopted after a public hearing; the motion carried unanimously. - The district accepted the annual independent financial audit for fiscal year 2024–25 conducted by Christie White & Associates. Auditor Kyle Montgomery said the audit produced three unmodified opinions (financial statements, federal awards, state awards). One state‑award finding was categorized as a teacher misassignment; following clarification with the California Department of Education, the matter did not include questioned costs and management outlined a corrective action plan. - The board approved a three‑year agreement with a Kennedy Group/Beemit software package to provide bond program financial management and citizen oversight reporting for Measure A. - The board approved Resolution 25/26‑13 amending employer contributions for retirees under the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act and adopted the 2026 governance handbook. The consent agenda was approved in a single motion.
Construction delivery briefing District staff introduced Reid Shannon (DWK) to brief the board on project delivery methods relevant to Measure A construction projects. Shannon compared: design‑bid‑build (traditional low‑bid, lump‑sum pricing and DSA timing requirements); lease‑leaseback (prequalification, best‑value selection, guaranteed maximum price after open‑book negotiation and earlier contractor involvement); design‑build (single entity for design and construction, options for standard vs. alternative design‑build); and the newer best‑value procurement option (hybrid approach for projects over $1 million that retains lump‑sum pricing but allows qualifications in selection).
Shannon highlighted tradeoffs—control vs. risk transfer, timing with Division of the State Architect approvals, labor compliance (skilled and trained workforce requirements for some methods), and potential legal and financing steps unique to lease‑leaseback and alternative design‑build. A trustee emphasized concern about losing project control and change‑order risk; the presenter recommended matching the procurement method to project complexity.
What’s next Staff will use the board’s feedback as they refine procurement recommendations for Measure A and continue citizen oversight preparations. The board’s next regular meeting is scheduled for Feb. 10, 2026.
