Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board rejects Measure G–funded plan to remove 116 trees as trustees and staff clash over costs, bidding and legal fit
Summary
A plan to remove about 116 trees as part of a districtwide reroofing project touched off debate over costs, environmental impact, bidding procedures and whether Measure G or CMAS procurement rules applied; trustees voted and the motion failed.
Trustees declined to approve a contract that would have removed roughly 116 trees districtwide ahead of a Measure G–funded reroofing project after prolonged questioning about procurement, scope and fund eligibility.
Board member Vicky Free asked why the district used a CMAS (California Multiple Award Schedule) contract rather than a local bid and pressed for evidence that all affected sites and communities had been consulted. "It's just chop down 116 trees. It's gonna totally change the landscape," Free said, asking why trimming or phased alternatives weren’t considered (board member question).
Facilities staff said the district had consulted arborists and a CEQA consultant and had identified trees whose proximity to roofs created maintenance and latent structural risks. The district’s facilities director described prior reroofing work where overhanging trees masked rot that was revealed only after roofing was removed. "When it's raining, all the water will be able to drain," a facilities official said, explaining the rationale for removal and noting that CMAS allowed earlier scheduling so work could be done before roofs were replaced.
Board counsel and multiple trustees argued the proposed procurement and funding raised legal questions. One trustee said Measure G funds are earmarked for specific facility repairs and that the CMAS use appeared to conflict with public contract code guidance requiring at least 50% in materials for CMAS—tree removal costs were largely labor. The trustee moved to pull the item; the motion had been seconded and then put to roll call. The vote failed (no approval): the motion to authorize the contract did not pass.
Why it matters: The proposal implicated $500,000+ of taxpayer (Measure G) money and intersected with stewardship of school grounds, safety risks tied to aging roofs, and procurement rules. Trustees explicitly debated alternatives (trimming, phased removal, replacement plans) and asked for stronger documentation and community input.
Outcome and next steps: The motion to approve the CMAS tree‑removal contract failed on roll call. Trustees asked staff to return with more detailed studies, alternatives, and clarification on permissible funding mechanisms and procurement routes before bringing a revised plan back to the board.
