This post in no way is a reflection upon the David & Cheryl Duffield Foundation (Foundation); it is solely in response to the email that was circulated by Trustee Wong. As of the time of this post, no official written communication has been published by the District explaining the termination of the Grant Agreement for the potential expansion of the Recreation Center. Incline Village Crystal Bay Community 1st is grateful for the generosity the Foundation has bestowed upon our community.
UPDATE as of October 8th:
While the termination paragraph in the Grant Agreement states in part in paragraph 6 that “Either Party may terminate this Agreement for cause with fifteen (15) days written notice to the other Party. The defaulting Party may avoid termination by curing such default during the notice period ….”
The letter received by the District didn’t state a reason or ’cause’ for the termination. Therefore, it appears the Board doesn’t have the necessary information to take action to ‘cure’ or resolve the ’cause’.
Additionally, the Option D drawings, that excluded the multi-use gym, were submitted to TRPA after the Board’s approval at their meeting on September 14th. The plans were later withdrawn.
ORIGINAL POST on October 2nd:
There has been much misinformation and emotion in the community surrounding the Recreation Center Expansion Project. Knowledge and understanding of the facts presented below from verifiable written record and public meeting comments by the Trustees is the only reliable means of evaluating the situation. The below carefully researched synopsis and references are intended to assist the reader in this effort.
In summary and upon further in-depth investigation, no documentation was found in any Board Packet, the Grant Agreement, or any discussion on LiveStream that the Board of Trustees or the community were informed that a unanimous vote of approval on the design (Sept. 14th Agenda Item E.2.a) was a requirement for the project’s continuance. The agenda item E.2.a of the September 14th meeting passed in a 4-1 (Schmitz opposing) vote for the removal of the multi-use gym from the Grant Agreement and the approval of design Option D. After the vote, Chair Callicrate thanked the Foundation for the generous gift.
Had the Board known a unanimous vote was required for the design, there would have been no need to move on to agenda item E.2.b: the approval of sending a letter of support for the project to the Foundation which passed with a 5-0 vote. At the conclusion of the meeting Chair Callicrate again thanked the Foundation for the generous donation.
Below is a researched history of the project with reference links:
January 12th, 2022 – Initial Board Authorization
Passes 5-0 vote
The Board authorized staff to work with the Foundation to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for visioning and the conceptual project phase for expanding programs and services to the community at the Recreation Center. There was no financial commitment made by the Foundation as part of this MOU, but a commitment to partner with IVGID.
February 9th, 2022 – Approval of Original Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
Passes 5-0 vote
The board approved a MOU with the Foundation for the conceptual design phase of the Recreation Center Expansion. The MOU states the Foundation will pay third party direct costs for the delivery of the conceptual design. The expansion proposal was to include a multi-use gym, a 60’X60’ dedicated gymnastics facility, programming and social area, administration space, restrooms, a small kitchen and adequate storage.
April 27th, 2022 – Board Awards Contracts for Schematic Design
Passes 5-0 vote
The board awarded a not-to-exceed $72,000 contract for a 30% schematic design under the MOU. IVGID Staff time to support this effort was estimated to be $29,000, and would not be reimbursed by the Foundation. The project was to deliver the following:
- Project Scope:
a. Gymnasium: high school basketball court, half of which will be
dedicated for gymnastics use.
b. Youth Center: including classrooms, office space, bathrooms and a
small kitchen facility.
c. Storage: enough storage area to accommodate the new gym and existing gym.
d. Ingress/Egress: Separate entrance for the Youth Center, with safety
as a consideration.
e. Parking: Possible reconfiguration of the parking lot.
- Approximate Budget range.
- Construction Schedule: May 1, 2023 to Dec. 31, 2024.
Staff identified the project schedule, which included submitting the 60% design to TRPA and Washoe County for permits by September 22nd, a week later than communicated to the board on September 14th.
Reference link: Board Packet Memo
June 29th, 2022– Approval of Design and Awarding of Construction Contracts
Passes 5-0 vote
The Board of Trustees approved the 30% schematic design, approved the awarding of contracts totaling $2,410,000 for the delivery of a 100% construction documents, which was to include a new youth center and gymnasium, half of the latter dedicated to gymnastics use, with the other half for use as a multiple-use gym and tenant improvements ($110,000 of the total) and directed staff to proceed with development of a progressive grant agreement with the Duffield Foundation to be brought to the board for approval on July 27th. Missing from the cost estimate was IVGID staff time totaling $115,000 which brings the total cost for this phase to $2,525,000, including tenant improvements. The construction cost estimate, one of the deliverables of the schematic design effort, was $26,037,500.
The project schedule was tightened with the 60% design submittal to TRPA and Washoe County targeted for September 1st, 21 days earlier than originally planned. The project scope estimate had expanded from the original project to be roughly 33,000 sq. feet, including a full-sized basketball court instead of the ½ court in original design.
July 27th, 2022 – Grant Agreement for Design and Pre-Construction
Passes 5-0 vote
The Board of Trustees approved a Grant Agreement for design and pre-construction services in the amount of $2,415,000 for the Recreation Center Expansion Project. This amount excluded the tenant improvements of $110,000, but did include the IVGID engineering/project management costs of $115,000.
September 14th, 2022
Design and Grant Agreement Amendment – Passes 4-1 vote
Letter of Support – Passes 5-0 vote
Agenda Item E.2.a “Review, discuss and possibly approve an amendment to the grant agreement with the Dave and Cheryl Duffield Foundation to modify the scope of the Recreation Center Expansion project”
The Board met for the first time to discuss 4 separate design options and potentially modify the Grant Agreement to eliminate the multi-use gym. The board agenda item and the board memo subject were not consistent.
The agenda item was solely for the amendment of the grant agreement. The memorandum for this agenda item, produced by staff, contained a recommended motion for the Trustees in ERROR. It erroneously referenced agenda item E.2.b, the approval of sending a letter of support to the Foundation, which had not been reviewed nor discussed as part of agenda item E.2.a.
Due to this error, Trustee Schmitz requested the language be excluded, in conformance with the agenda. The board agreed.
Due to a desire to reduce the project costs, the Foundation’s preferred design, Option D, had the multi-use gym removed. As reflected in the meeting minutes, Trustees Dent, Tonking, and Schmitz expressed concern regarding the elimination of the multi-use gym. Trustee Schmitz suggested the District provide funding to deliver on the scope of the Grant Agreement and the project that the Board had approved. She also expressed concern that in the effort to move the project along quickly, an opportunity was being missed that may be regretted later.
Staff indicated the consultants had been working 3 weeks on Option D, which excluded the multi-use gym. Any design other than Option D would not meet the scheduled plans for TRPA submittal the following day. Staff and the consultants moved forward with the Option D design to meet the deadline, yet the design had not been approved by the Board.
The GM stated Option D was the only design the Foundation was willing to accept due to project cost concerns. The Foundation was provided options and costs for review, however, this meeting was the first time the Board met to review and discuss the issues and concerns. Citing project timeline concerns, the Trustees voted 4-1 in favor of Option D and modified the language in the Grant Agreement to exclude the multi-use gym.
The Board Meeting Agenda, Board Memo and the discussion of the design options at the meeting included no statement, nor any discussion that there was a requirement of a unanimous vote on Agenda Item E.2.a of the project design in order for the project to continue. This passed in a 4-1 vote. After the vote, Chair Callicrate expressed thanks to the Foundation for the generous donation. If a unanimous vote was known to be required, there would have been no need to proceed to the next agenda item, the letter of support.
Only sometime after the September 14th meeting were any comments made by Trustee Wong and later Chair Callicrate that the Foundation required the design vote to be unanimous.
Agenda Item E.2.b to “Review, discuss and possibly approve the sending of a letter of support to the Dave and Cheryl Duffield Foundation for the modified scope of the Recreation Center Expansion Project”
The Board agreed to change the statement from “The Board would like to apologize for any miscommunication” to state “The District…” since Trustees Dent and Schmitz expressed confusion as to what the Board was to apologize for. The Trustees approved, 5-0, to send the letter of support to the Duffield Foundation for the modified scope of the Recreation Center Expansion Project.
At the conclusion of the meeting, again Chair Callicrate thanked the Foundation for the generous donation. By viewing LiveStream it appears the Board understood the project was approved and moving forward.
September 28th, 2022 – The Public Outcry Due to Trustee Wong’s Email
A large number of community members made public comment that appeared to be based on information provided in an email sent by Trustee Wong. Most were demanding Trustee Schmitz’s immediate resignation. She sat and listened attentively, but did not resign.
The Board Chair said he spoke with a representative of the Foundation on September 27th asking for clarification as to why they decided to terminate the agreement. The Board Chair further stated that the Foundation’s representative clarified it was due to a lack of a unanimous vote on the project design.
Beginning at 1:34 into the LiveStream, you can hear the Board Chair and the Trustees make comments regarding the termination of the agreement.
There were questions raised by the public at the meeting as to why Trustee Schmitz voted against the design and modification to the Grant Agreement and then voted in support of the letter expressing unanimous support of both.
Trustee Schmitz stated on the record at the meeting on September 28th , which can be viewed on LiveStream beginning at 1:41:22, that when the Board approves an agenda item, all Board members are to align with that decision. She went on to state the Board made the decision to move forward with Option D and that she ‘signed up’ and ‘signed on’ to support the Board’s decision and voted to approve the letter of unanimous support for the project and the design as stated in the letter to the Foundation found in agenda item E.2.b. This resulted in a 5-0 vote.