School Board Meeting June 7th, 2017 Pt. 3

We are still completing our director's comments.

Are there any, I know Director Pinkham, you haven't had a chance to speak yet.

I think a couple of the directors wanted to finish some thoughts.

Director Pinkham, would you like to go next?

I sure do.

Thank you.

Thank you and good evening.

I apologize for arriving late this school board meeting but I had other duties on the University of Washington campus as they finish up their finals week and I had a final to give myself today and again the students one came like at 427 when the final was due at 430. I thought I was going to be able to leave early and get here on time.

But I'm here now and I can honestly and truthfully say of all the people that got awards tonight I've never seen anything like it before.

Because I wasn't here so I didn't see it.

But I do want to definitely congratulate Gail Morris on her award and what she's doing for the Seattle School District and the progress that we've made and the progress we have still yet to make for all our students and in particular again for me close to my heart is our Native American community.

So congratulations to Gail Morris for being awarded the Native Action Network Enduring Spirit Award.

and as other directors up here said too and since I wasn't here I just want to again acknowledge all the other student champions by literacy and the Ballard Robotics team you know good job for all the work that our students our community are doing to support the Seattle schools.

Looking at you know the comments that we heard tonight you know the language immersion or the heritage speakers you know being exposed to more than one culture or multiple cultures is definitely a way for us to grow and get to know one another so we're not living isolated and thinking that this is one way is the right way as we learn from others we enrich ourselves and if we can support that yes you do we have the financial capability to do it.

you know but if we can let people know that yes that's our priority we want to make sure that we learn not only from the books that we read but from the people that are sitting beside us.

The people that are leading the classrooms you know that their input their cultural their perspectives are valued and we need to appreciate that because as an engineer, not myself as an engineer, but as an advisor for engineering, we know that we need different perspectives.

We don't just need the mathematicians, the people that go to physics.

We also need the people that get in sociology, good with the arts because then they provide the insight that is needed to make a nice well-rounded engineering project.

For those that are looking at the bell times, yes, we're looking at going from the three tier to the two tier.

And yes, they're is that need you know I don't want to see our students having to get up so early to go to catch the bus or then also we got to look at the flip side getting out of school so late to catch the bus and those issues when I deal with and I believe that we are going in the right direction you know we're seeing what possibilities are out there and we'll take all your comps in consideration so still keep letting us know what your concerns are and all of our directors I know our emails have been filled I think you get about 200 emails on bell times and two tiers each day I think I'm getting through my email and boom there it is filled again and as I said just keep on letting us know and we'll do our best and I think that's why you voted us to be up here to do the best that we can and as with your input The wait lists Hopefully we are going to do I see that I wanted that question that was posed to us practice versus policy.

Yes we do have the policy that we should follow.

I think what happens sometimes is just the clarity the transparency of what's actually behind that policy and meeting during other things that we looked at.

Yes we know that there was some transparency issues and we're going to bring that up so that people know that Yes capacity is the issue but there are other issues below that and as look at the weighting staffing standards and how that impacts what we have to do the decisions we have to make.

You know I think we're on the right path to be more transparent so when we do this student assignment plan that there is there's more than just capacity we have to consider and it sounds like it wasn't transparent to our parents and students out there as to how we make those assignments or how those assignments are made.

and I see as going forward more clarity on that so you are seeing the decisions that are being made are the best that we can.

And if there is a way from the list that were shared with us that we can make those wait list shifts without impacting schools right now on the waiting staffing standards.

Let's see what we can do.

So after June 15th I will plan to see if I can schedule another community meeting so we can see where we're at.

so I'll announce my community meeting either on the website after the 15th once I identify a time and place so that we can see how it went after this next benchmark for our wait list.

For Rainier Beach the students that are coming here saying would we vote for the BECCS or approve the BECCS levy funds if Rainier Beach was listed first or would we not if it wasn't listed first.

again the same with Director Harris.

I can't make that kind of promise right now.

I don't know what's going to happen by the time it comes up here that you know what if there was some emergency where a school has to be bumped down.

But do I want to see Rainier Beach on that?

Yes.

but I also know that there are other schools out there that need to be on that list as well.

And so there are going to be some tough decisions to make again who gets the funding who doesn't.

We don't want to put schools against one another.

Try to fill the greatest need and also serve the community the best that we can.

and so trust us that we will make those decisions with your input and insight along with the directors up here.

And I feel very proud to be amongst these directors because I think we have very diverse perspectives and input on these decisions and the staff around the corners.

Yes we also around the room not just the corners are valued inputs as well.

And it is a combination of all these minds that we're working to make sure that we're making decisions that are best for the school district as a whole.

I don't have a personal story to share with you tonight.

I wish I did.

But I do want to announce June 9th and the Hachusa program will have their native celebration.

Unfortunately I will be at the University of Washington native graduation so I won't be able to make there but congratulations to the students that will be at the June 9th celebration.

I also want to announce that actually the Urban Native Education Alliance will have their clear sky rites of passage on June 17th which is for rising eighth graders and graduating seniors at Nathan Hale in June 17th and 5 30 to 8 30 and they have a special keynote speaker Miss Alaska Alyssa London will be down to talk to our students that attend that.

So for other parents or the students that are rising eighth graders or graduating seniors of indigenous descent.

If you want to find out more information just please send me an email and we'll see if we can get you on the list of people to acknowledge.

And as mentioned before I will try to schedule a meeting meeting again after the next waitlist check in on June 15th or 16th and thank you.

A personal story.

I believe you had a birthday this week.

Happy birthday to you.

Happy birthday to you.

Happy birthday to you.

All right.

Yes I was going to say happy birthday to Elias too but we did sing to him and he is no longer here but to a fellow Gemini to all the Gemini's out there happy birthday.

Director Patu you wanted to complete your thoughts

First I wanted to say thank you to all the students who came tonight and talked to us about the various needs in our district and very pleased with the Rainier Beach student who actually continue to tell us what's going on and as they continue on to tell us what's going on.

It's been long overdue.

Ringer Beach has actually been on the BEX five times and each time it was moved out of the BEX and another school was put in place.

This happened throughout the whole time.

I was sitting on the board and I've been on the board for eight years.

and right now this is the reason why our students are fighting for remodelsation of their school.

I believe, you know, that that Rainier Beach has been ignored and has not had the opportunity to be remodeled when they came out and did minor remodel.

They would just slap certain things in the school and that was it.

The floors were different colors.

So you know so I actually sympathize with the students at Rainier Beach in terms of getting their school remodeled.

And as we look at every school all the schools have been remodeled every high school has been remodeled except for Rainier Beach High School.

So for me that's a really sad situation because it's almost like we're telling our kids they're less than.

when we by how our actions and what we do reflects you know according to the students it reflects in terms of what do we think about them.

So I hear other board director says you know we're not going to make that choice.

But in terms of someone who's actually been watching for many years and watching Rainier Beads kept put off the backs My hope and my wish is that Rainier Beach will be renovated with BEX 5 when it comes around.

And also I would like to here from staff you know we met a couple months ago about HCC in terms of the recruitment of kids of color and as of now I still have not heard anything and I really would like to know what are we doing to recruit more kids of color and how what's the process that we're using in order to see more students of color qualify to be in HCC and so that would be something that I really would like to to hear and hopefully you can send it to me on a fighter report to let me know exactly where we're at because I still have not heard anything and I really would like to hear something because that has been a question that has been brought up many times.

Why are we not recruiting more kids of color into HCC or advanced learning?

So hopefully you can come up with an answer on that and I also want to say thank you to Jacob, I know he's not here on the side for having the efforts and tenacious to follow through with his program successfully to where he actually got blessed with an opportunity for a better future for him.

So congratulations, Jacob.

Steven parents you know I hear you loud and clear in terms of what is that you're you know telling us and yes we do have a policy that says as long as we have room in our schools that kids can are able to go to those schools.

But right now we're going to wait until June 15 to see what you know how that list is going to move forward and hopefully that we can be able to come up with some straight answer in terms of what you're looking for for your for your school and the students on the wait list.

appreciate the students that actually came out and spoke on behalf of the Asian language that are looking at the district is trying to cut.

I remember many years ago when I first started in the Seattle Public School I worked in the bilingual program and Asian language were language that all of us actually were implementing.

we had Chinese we had Japanese and it's really kind of sad to hear that we're looking at trying to cut those language when it's something that's been with us for many many years so hopefully that we can find a way to save those language and be able to you know to be able to continue on utilizing those language for our kids after all you know Japan and China are actually very those are very top countries that, you know, we try to train our kids so they'll be able to speak those languages.

So in terms of if they decided to get a job or, you know, it's what's happening right now.

And so I would hate to see Asian, you know, Japanese and Chinese languages are being cut from our curriculum.

So hopefully that we can look at that before we actually move forward on it.

The two tiers transportation I really want to thank Peggy for her effort and really pushing that through.

She's been a soldier in terms of not only talking to people downtown but also calling all of us and saying you know we need to really look at this and figure out you know what are we going to do and so I appreciate her efforts and I believe that hopefully it will go in the right direction.

still have the console hasn't voted yet but we're hoping that the vote becomes positive.

And I so also wanted to just want to say thank you to all my colleagues here tonight.

You know it's been great serving with all of you and I always tell people this is one of the best board I've ever sit on.

So smile.

I feel that we work well together and you know we're really moving things forward because our hearts in the right place.

We're here because of the kids and as long as we're here working for kids I think we can't go nowhere else but up.

So thank you for all the work that you do.

Thank you Betty.

Director Harris did you have one more thing you wanted to add?

Well actually now it's two because of what Betty said.

Can you make it short?

I will make it short.

Thank you.

I hope that I was not misunderstood when I said I would not make a guarantee to put Rainier Beach High School renovation as number one on the BEX 5 list.

Will I fight for the BEX 5 list and Rainier Beach High School's inclusion?

Yes.

Will I put it as number one?

I think it would be irresponsible of me to do that given the other needs at that time.

So I wanted to clarify that to make sure I was not misunderstood.

My heart's in the right place but I'm not sure my mouth is sometimes.

next issue is we had a dust up last week with respect to punitive measures taken against children whose parents opted them out of testing.

And I find that highly concerning and I look forward to Tuesday evenings curriculum and instruction committees conversation about assessments.

I think it belongs there.

I think that our work session made this board's excuse me Monday.

I thought we were moving it to Tuesday.

Fair enough.

Thank you.

I'd have been here on Tuesday.

I find that really concerning especially given the very strong comments that were made at the work session on assessments.

And it's my hope that leadership and the directors and our venerated principals will talk about that during the summer leadership institute.

and we'll work something out so that children are not penalized for their parents choices.

Further with respect to tardies and attendance when our buses don't make it to school on time.

How do we calculate that.

So.

I appreciate the initial goal of increasing attendance etc. but let's be real clear about punitive actions against children.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, I think I'm the last one here and I'm going to try and go through my points pretty quickly.

As far as dual language, there's no question in my mind that that's incredibly valuable.

Even if you don't have an immediate application for the language, it opens your mind, it opens your heart to completely different cultures.

I was exposed to French at a very early age and continued it and so ultimately was able to become fluent and it has enriched my life definitely.

So I of course support whatever we can do to maintain and even expose more children to do a language.

However we do know that there is a cost associated with that.

So I would like to follow up on the grant that was mentioned from the representative from One America and find out if we're availing ourselves of that.

I won't repeat all the recognitions of this that we had earlier today in detail.

I just want to quickly say thank you to Gail Morris, to our athletes, to congratulations to our bi-literate students and to the Ballard Robotics team.

It was quite a nice array of different skills that are manifest in our district.

I had the opportunity to help hand out some ORCA cards yesterday with King County Executive Dow Constantine on behalf of the county, which is now offering a special teen rate for ORCA cards.

You can travel for 50 cents a ride.

and so I encourage everybody to look into that so our students can get around town during the summer months easily.

And at this point I actually think public transportation is probably more efficient than individual cars because of all the construction that's going on.

As far as when your beach high school goes you know for years it's been left off the list.

I mean it did have one improvement with its theater facilities in the past but I believe it definitely should be on BEX V. Where it should be on the list I don't know but I think we do have a situation where if we're looking just at enrollment enrollment numbers that might not dictate this exactly.

However I do believe that when we invest in our buildings then that does attract our students.

It does attract our families.

If you build it they will come and I think we're going to have to make that leap with Rainier Beach.

It's only fair and I think we will see a big difference and we owe it to our students.

As far as the lunch debt, I was actually quite sad and embarrassed to find out we had such a thing.

It's such a minimal amount all told.

It's only about twenty thousand dollars.

It seems like we should be able to find some way to settle that debt without it having to go out to fundraisers or celebrities.

I mean I know that students who finished out their time in Seattle Public Schools who still have money they haven't used are able to contribute it to other students and I think that's that's a wonderful thing and I wonder if that can balance it out.

But it seems to me that we need to address this somehow.

I do want to point out though that any any child who needs a lunch is given a lunch.

We don't turn any children away.

So I just want that to be clear to everybody that we don't let any child go hungry.

I enjoyed the board retreat we had recently.

I wish more members of the public would come to our retreats.

Maybe we need to advertise them more.

We had some really great presentations.

One of them was on identity safety from Dr. Freiberg and she talked specifically through the lens of what it's like to be a Native American student but in broader scope of how we can be more understanding of different cultures and more attuned to different cultures and understand how we can reach students and this would be primarily within our schools for our teachers but also as administrators we need to understand this and then that complemented quite well the afternoon presentation which was on the highly capable program but very specifically it was on how to increase diversity in the program.

And so all the people who are here earlier I really wish from the equity team I wish they had come to our retreat.

They would have found it very interesting.

She also spoke about different techniques that have worked in other districts.

I think Federal Way has does some broad screening that catches and captures students who currently are not being readily identified for highly capable services.

What's important to remember is why these students need it.

That it is a need.

It is an intervention.

And Austin De La Bonte did talk about this.

De La Bonte talked about this very clearly about how it's an intervention almost like a special special need.

and so her presentation we will be able to put that up online for people to see and in the meantime her presentation was based on an article she wrote called peeling the onion equity in high cap that she that she posted on the the way tag site which is the Washington Association of Educators of Talented and Gifted.

So you can find her article there if you want to get a head start on learning about what she presented to us.

So we do recognize it as a challenge for our district but we are definitely trying to tackle this challenge so that we can give all the students who need these services the services they need and to make everybody feel welcome in the program.

Let's see.

I was fortunate to attend the scholarship awards for the school board's trustee scholarship committee and it's always a wonderful event because we have students from every high school and these are students who have experienced some sort of challenge and they have overcome that and they're so inspirational and they're so grateful.

And this year we had the counselors there as well and that made a huge difference.

The counselors gave their explanations for why they selected these students and you discover how wonderful the students are and how wonderful counselors are and how important it is that we invest in our counselors.

See as far as my next meeting I'm hoping to schedule one in July.

I don't think that June is going to work out because of various other things including graduation ceremonies and travel plans but I'm hoping to schedule one in July to be announced on the district site as soon as I get that figured out.

to something that was brought up earlier when director Geary came up with some interesting ideas on how we can address students needs in the classroom.

I think one problem I'm seeing throughout this whole discussion about highly capable and general ed is we simply are not engaging our children enough across the board.

even in every single program we offer, you know, we shouldn't have a situation where people feel that they're not getting what they need.

We need to serve all of our students in every classroom.

Every classroom should be engaging.

So I think that is something that we need to tackle.

I think that we have been we've sort of sterilized our education through the lens of Common Core and all the different mandates we get from both the state and the federal government that make things too rigid.

And I think I've talked before about all the rubrics that are imposed upon our children and I think we are choking out the creativity and the interest out of education and I think we need to take a look at that across the board and infuse our learning our education with inspirational approaches so that no student languishes.

As far as the wait lists you know I agree.

If we have practices that don't match our policies and protocol then we have a problem.

We have a disconnect and we're seeing that play out.

And I think this year we have people who are much more in tuned with how things are or not working.

We're also we also have the challenge of a growing district and not enough space for all of our students.

and so I I continue to ask staff to find solutions and if there are swaps that can be made that were laid out by one of the speakers and let's take a look at that.

If there's room let's let the students move into the school where there is room.

I don't see you know why we can have an algorithm that is so mysterious.

I think that's what the public is reacting to.

There's some mystical magical sorting hat going on and it's not in our policy.

So there are some practical considerations.

I'm aware of that.

But I think we do have to do things differently.

Even if this has been the practice I think the practice isn't working properly.

And I think I'll just conclude with thank you to director Blanford for mentioning the musical at Garfield.

It was a musical called In the Heights and I was there that night as well.

It was a fantastic show and I am biased.

I had a student who was in the play.

So just a shout out.

A shout out for actually all the great theatrical performance and musical performance that goes on in our district that we don't always know about and kids are doing great stuff.

All right.

So thank you all very much.

And we will now proceed to the action portion of our agenda.

Oh not at all.

You jogged my memory and I'll pass on the compliment to the students.

In fact I had some tickets you should have called me.

All right, let's see.

Okay item number one is approval of the 2017-18 school year calendar.

I move that the school board approve the 2017-18 school year calendar as attached to the board action report.

I second the motion.

This came to the executive committee on May 4th where it was advanced for consideration.

I don't remember why I'm assuming there was some detail missing perhaps somebody from staff can remind us why it was just consideration on that or did What was our reason?

We wanted other directors to see it.

Well it was May 4th that this came through and we had questions about the level of community engagement and why we did a survey and those were I believe very well answered in introduction when we had the SEA representative come in and talk about the needs based bargaining all last year.

Thank you for that reminder.

Are there any questions or comments about this item?

Director Geary.

I did see the emails on this issue in terms of families once again feeling frustrated that their input wasn't ultimately the determining factor and I think it's worth stating once again that this is the issue again of not if putting the early release on the Wednesday correct and that if we're going to spend our time and listen to everybody about the need to create more time for collaboration and more time for professional development in our teachers which we have been told over and over again would get us closer to what is held out as the be all end all of models which is the Finland education model.

that we with our limited dollars and our limited resources and limited time need to make sure that we're maximizing the outcome of that benefit to our teachers and that according to our teachers they would maximize their benefit.

We would get most bang for our buck and our time and our investment in them if they did that on Wednesday and then we're able to return to the classroom the next day with this newly gained information and put it to work on behalf of our kids.

And it's our hope that that will then elevate their practices and elevate the experience of our kids.

And I think from my perspective ultimately that's what we're here for and that is a priority.

Director Harris.

And I would point out on that same vein the rich discussion we had in intro.

I feel confident that we did learn lessons and that we'll move forward in a more transparent way including acknowledging the part that our labor partners play.

The other is the list of other surrounding districts that have a Wednesday early release was pretty profound to me.

They seem to be surviving and I suspect we will as well and I don't underestimate the fact that folks have childcare and employment needs but if we don't have our teachers with time to learn together then we can't make the progress that we're here to support.

Any other questions or comments about this item.

Dr. Pinkham?

First is there a way we can adjust this feedback that's going on here?

Or is that in the works right now?

I know one of my community meetings and I acknowledge that some of the input is expected about Nathan Hale because right now they have late start Tuesdays and one of their concerns was with this now early release on Wednesdays would they be able to stick with or petition to ask we're still have that late start of Tuesdays and if I could just have the response so we can have a record I got the response via email but if you can share that I'd appreciate it.

Sure I'm Clover Cobb the assistant superintendent of human resources so I wasn't part of the email communication but my understanding is that actually no they would need to go with the Wednesday early release because we've organized the calendar so that educators who have job alike specialists perhaps art teachers would be able to get together on certain Wednesdays and that would leave Nathan Hale out of that plan if they were to choose a different day in a different time.

I understand that there's also transportation issues too if they were allowed to have a different schedule.

Yes Nathan Hale would probably have to pay for their own transportation.

Are there any other questions or comments about this item?

OK Ms. Shek the roll call please.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

Thank you.

Item two.

Accepting transportation and crossing guard grants from the city of Seattle.

I move that the Seattle School Board authorize a superintendent to accept two grants from the city of Seattle if approved by the city on or before June 15th for the 2017 18 school year.

One the one time only funding to move to a two tier busing systems system in the amount of two point three million dollars and two the annual funding of the school crossing guard program in the amount of up to four hundred thousand dollars.

I further move that the superintendent be authorized to take any necessary steps actions to implement the grants including minor modifications to the transportation service standards.

I second the motion.

May I please hear from the chair of the audit and finance committee.

That would be used Leslie.

My apologies.

May 11 for approval.

For approval.

All right.

Are there any.

Well are there any changes since introduction.

There are Peggy McAvoy assistant superintendent for operations.

I just wanted to highlight a couple of the changes that are on the bar.

We were asked by Director Geary to make sure that we added language around the race and equity toolkit and we did that.

Additionally we talked about modifying the actual bar language so that it would authorize the superintendent to make some minor adjustments.

That's the language you just read into it and that was redlined into it since introduction.

Are there any questions or comments.

Director Blanford.

There have been some additional changes or developments to this since the last time that we talked.

Ask me that one more time.

Have there been some additional conversations that have taken place?

My understanding is the city council will take action on this sometime next week.

Yes.

The city council has moved it directly for a full council vote on Monday June 12th.

and was there not at one point we as the board learned that the reimbursement from the state which we had been we had been operating with the assumption that our reimbursement rate from the state would be at the same level that it's been over the course of the last few years which had been 100 percent and dropped down to 98 99 percent and then we discovered or we were informed that that was under revision.

Yes so like most districts we are not fully funded for transportation.

We however are funded more than many other districts within the state and we have vacillated usually between 98 and 100 percent.

This last year we were funded at 95 percent and that had to do with the fact that we had four McKinney Vento sites which are schools outside of our district that we had to transport students to.

those students are no longer homeless so we never no longer provided those sites so that actually caused a reduction in the allocation that the state was offering us.

We do know that we are reimbursed and we are waiting for the state to fully fund based on McCleary until then we can't even guarantee that our third three tiers are going to be fully funded.

That's something that we're working with the state legislature on.

In the meantime we have identified some potential future revenue sources for transportation and we will be bringing that to the operations committee at our next June meeting in order to share that with the board.

We believe that those funds will be able to offset the majority of any two tiers that we put in place.

So if I can follow that.

So there is a story going around the community that that us receiving these funds and going to a two tier system and then there being the potential for us not to receive reimbursement from the state puts us in a really precarious position where either we would have to one fund out of our general fund the difference between the 2.3 million dollars if it's not reimbursed by the state or to go back to a three tier system a year after we implemented a two tier system.

Can you speak to and give us some assurance that neither of those two options are realistic in this situation?

Obviously we don't want to have more changes for our family.

So if we move to a two tier we want to be able to stay with a two tier.

So there are two options.

One we make sure that the state fully funds us.

Obviously with that's not necessarily in our control.

The other is that we go out and we look for some additional funds to backfill that just in case McCleary doesn't do the job.

And that's the strategy that we are moving forward with.

if I can ask one more question.

So as a board member who has this issue in front of us and we have to take a vote on it.

What assurance do we have that we are not putting an additional burden onto our general fund budget which my understanding is it's going to be stretched pretty severely next year.

for recurring.

So it wouldn't be one time it would be several years in order to live up to our two tier system.

Jolen Berkey assistant superintendent for business and finance.

We cannot provide you that assurance at this time.

There could still be a gap in the out years and while we will do our best to look for other funding sources at this point.

We don't know that those would materialize or that McCleary would be funded in a way that would make us whole.

Any other questions or comments about this item?

Director Burke and then Director Geary.

I want to thank you and your team for all the work that's been done to look at the different scenarios and crosswalk this in so many different ways.

I know one of the concerns that has been prevalent in the public that's been communicated to us is around the just the late end of day and the impact on sports.

And I was wondering if you could speak a little bit to that topic and what we're looking at in terms of flexibility for that and mitigating that effect for our athletes and our scholars.

Yes so that was a question that we did receive at the last meeting and one of the things we wanted to look at was what is the impact to our athletes on their classroom time.

So here is what we've researched and found out.

It really does depend on the sport of the sports that are offered at high schools.

The athletic department moved competitions and practice later for most sports and the school board authorized additional funds to hire charter buses during the school year.

These supports mitigated most but not all of the impacts to our student athletes.

When comparing whether high school student athletes missed more than one hour of class in 15-16 school year as compared to this school year.

On average what we found was two sports had negligible change that was baseball and volleyball.

Seven sports actually had their athletes have a reduced amount of time out of class and that was the sports for basketball, fast pitch, football, soccer, tennis, volleyball and wrestling.

and then finally five sports had athletes that missed more class time this year and that was cross country golf gymnastics swimming and track and field.

And we're continuing to try to mitigate that.

We've got some strategies.

I am meeting actually with the athletic department and transportation tomorrow to look at additional strategies to reduce impacts.

Director Geary.

This is clearly an important issue for a lot of our families as we're seeing in our email traffic.

So I wanted to take some time to talk about how I've been thinking about it.

When I make a decision that's hotly contested probably being the attorney I am I create the factors and the criteria by which I'm going to examine it.

and I think that the priorities that I give are I look at the health and safety because if we have to keep our kids safe.

I look at the academic impact because that is our job as a school district.

I then look at the family considerations and finally I do look at the extracurricular impact that it might our decision might have.

and of course we overlay that with the equity analysis and you've assured us that that has been done in this case.

For health and safety we've been told that the American Pediatrics Association really thinks it's healthier for our kids to sleep in our adolescence.

and we've been hearing now that with the change in our times having kids our little kids go to school much earlier and much later can be more dangerous to them in terms of traveling at night.

And so this is a safety issue for them in terms of us getting them all on track.

and it also makes me worry about the kids in the third tier because then they start being out of sync when you have little kids that are out of sync traveling around at times of the day when other people aren't expecting them to.

That's when things can go awry.

academics we know that there's better learning for our adolescents who get more sleep and we're hearing that our parents are very concerned about the elementary students who are not starting school and the learning that's impacted by not getting to school and getting settled till 10 o'clock in the morning.

The family considerations is truly a mixed bag.

But I know from having third several third tier schools in my district that it's very difficult for our working families to figure out how to accommodate and take care of their kids until almost 10 o'clock in the morning before they can get to school.

We're finding that kids are being dropped off at playgrounds way too early unsupervised.

again that's a safety issue but that's being driven by family economics and the inability to otherwise provide for their kids.

And then our extracurriculars well yes we've seen the negative impact to athletes.

I think we've also been hearing and we don't think about the elementary school kids but it makes it very difficult if our kids aren't getting out until 4 in the afternoon for the parents to find enrichments for them if they can't be guaranteed to get their kids there until 4 30 by that point.

it's so late that a lot of those programs are already ending.

And so it's not just our adolescents that are impacted though.

You know we do have a really another impact then on the other end in terms of our elementary kids.

I think some of these things are so important that we as a school district need to just.

determine that a two tier system is the right safest most academically strong way to go for our families.

And so for those reasons I would vote that we should if allowed by the city take this money.

I hope that the city council understands that as a district this has been something that we've been working on for a really long time.

and we've thought about it in the context of education which is our job and that we have used our equity tool and analysis and we have listened to many of our families just as they've heard from our families.

So I hope that they too see that this is a good thing for our schools.

Any other questions or comments.

Director Pinkham.

And thank you Peggy for all the work that you've done on this.

And I agree with Director Geary that this move to a two chair system is needed for our schools.

But right now to me there sounds like there's still a lot of questions to be answered that we're not sure yes we can't guarantee we'll have it in our budget because we're not sure about McCleary or other things or even if the city will approve this one time funding and then still further studies to do on the impact for some of the schools or the athletics.

So for me it's almost do I have enough information to make a good sound yay or nay vote on this.

Again I really agree with the two tiered system but are we ready for it?

And I know we got this timeline that we have to do this by a certain timeline but if we don't have the funding yet and we're not sure how if we do get the funding are we going to be able to sustain it for future years.

That's my difficulty right now with this.

And just one other quick question which I might have missed or forgot about it.

Why are these two grants combined on one bar?

Originally they were the ask to the city and so they were looking at maybe using the same funding source from the city.

So it was combined in that way.

So is there a chance that they might approve one and not the other.

Yes.

Harris.

So if they approve one but not the other if we vote yay on this we don't have to come back because we've already said yes we will accept it.

It is very troubling that we still have details to be worked out and it's very troubling in this era of crazy and lack of funding.

But we were elected to take the tough votes and to have faith and work together to fix these issues.

And I'd like to believe that we have enough brainpower in this room and in this building to do so.

And I would like to believe that we will combine with our communities and community engagement to make this happen.

I will be voting yes.

I don't want perfect to get in the way of the good.

I absolutely appreciate the comments that we've gotten about how this impacts families.

I've been there done that stinks when you have to rearrange your whole life or you have kids at several different schools.

and you're trying to pay the mortgage and you're trying to do right by your family.

Absolutely not discounting that.

But we have to take the greater good here and cut it out.

And I think we can do that.

Thank you very much Peggy for your tenacity.

This has been a heavy lift and hugely appreciate it.

And your team.

Thank you very much.

I'll let the team know.

Director Burke.

The word stability and disruption and minimizing disruption maximizing predictability and we I think we aspirationally we want to provide something to our families that doesn't change every year that checks the boxes that director Geary just described in terms of safety and student health and academic and you know best practices.

So as we look at this and we say this is really important and that a two tier is the best system for the long term and then we look forward at some of the other things we've got going on.

Do you anticipate that some of those other work streams like 24 credits could impact this where in our high school schedules or would that all be working within the existing structure as we look at that in the next year or two.

So my understanding is the addition of the 20 minutes will allow us to work through the 24 credits but I will let the associate superintendent answer that.

Michael Tolley associate superintendent for teaching and learning and we actually took a look at the additional 20 minutes and the ability that that will have allow us to work within that time frame for the school day to accommodate various schedules.

So of course all depends on which schedule we decide to implement for the 18 19 school year.

But we do not anticipate needing to increase the length of any of the high schools school day.

Director Blanford.

So for my colleagues who have been on the board for less than a couple of years I will share that when we originally made the shift to our bell times I was the lone holdout.

I was I voted against it and I voted against it for many of the reasons that Director Geary shared that at the time we were going through a three tier system and those parents and families who were in that third tier for numerous reasons articulated strongly with very stark language why they felt it was wrong and did a disservice for their kids to, for the entire city to hear the benefits of the brain science and the research around what benefits accrue to students as a result of this but their kids did not get to participate.

That that was one issue that I was uncomfortable with.

Another was the feedback and testimony that we heard from many families who didn't have schedule flexibility and would be negatively impacted.

And we've seen you know as a result of kids that don't have are not supervised in critical hours.

And as a former executive director of a nonprofit organization I know that unsupervised kids during hours where their parents aren't home is a recipe for bad outcomes to happen.

So I was very sensitive to that notion.

And finally I was really sensitive to the idea that like I said that we would do we would treat some kids and share the benefits with them without sharing to others.

So I've watched really closely as we have implemented the shift in bell times and the resulting changes to transportation to accommodate those shifts in bell times.

I've watched it really closely because I wanted to work with my colleagues and with the staff to alleviate those concerns.

I remember when we said when we tasked Ms. McEvoy with trying to find 2.3 million dollars thinking yeah that's not going to happen.

But lo and behold the city has come to our rescue.

but my primary concern now has to do with what happens if we are not able to get future funding for the shift to bell times primarily because as I as I tried to state earlier that will be a 2 million 2.3 million dollar recurring hit on our budget in perpetuity and is my understanding of our future budget situation is next year is going to be pretty significantly challenged.

And so I have huge concerns about taking on another expense that we don't have funding guaranteed for.

And I understand the complexities of you know multiple jurisdictions all having some say into whether or not we would be reimbursed.

But we continue to just say well we'll just go ahead and hope for the best.

But at some point we don't have the ability to balance our budgets if we continue to say that.

And I think this is a case with a number of 2.3 million dollars.

It's pretty significant which causes me pause and leads me unfortunately to vote in opposition to this motion.

Director Geary.

I appreciate what director Blanford is saying.

And from the perspective of the families that I hear from in my district since we my district disproportionately has the third tier.

They will come back and ask that we rotate that third tier.

and that they're not the only ones that sit in that third tier.

And if we think that there is a cost to moving to two tiers I think the cost and the disruption to our families by having a rotating third tier population that would be expensive.

That would be disruptive.

I think that we need to remember that when the public pays their taxes they do so with the faith that this the civil servants that they are paying taxes to will work together to come up with solutions that meet the needs of the city.

I think this is one of those times that there is education and around education there are a lot of other civic obligations.

There is things that don't necessarily happen in the classroom.

There is transportation.

There is food security.

There is safety and policing.

and sometimes we're going to have to go to our partners and just insist that they come and be partners with us for the families of our 54,000 students.

And I think this is one of those times that we can fairly ask that.

And I think I'm very proud of our families because they have stepped up and they have asked that for themselves and they have reminded our whole city and our district that they expect us to work together to come up with a solution for them that is best for their kids.

So that is why I'm going to have faith that we as part of a body of publicly elected officials will continue to listen to our families and do what is right by them.

So I'd like to weigh in at this point in terms of the history.

Isn't it true that we once had as many as like twenty three different start times for our schools.

Twenty six.

Twenty six.

OK.

So then we simplified it down to three.

So we're making progress.

But the problem was always the third tier because students were starting school super late and finishing super late.

Here's here's a start time for a current school 935 finishing 345. So you can imagine what that means for parents who have to work, have to get out long before then.

And so it has imposed a hardship on our families.

Some families have had to have before school care for their children.

and after school chair to care because of these sorts of schedules.

So I know the district has prided itself on switching to the three tiers in a way that was cost neutral for the district.

But as I've said before, it may have been cost neutral for the district, but it was not cost neutral for our families.

Our families bore the costs of that choice.

And so the third tier has been a problem from the start and and it's been a hardship.

We have heard for years from the public that they would like just two straightforward start times just to make it simple.

And so this gives us the opportunity to do that.

And I greatly appreciate the city stepping forward and the mayor stepping forward and trying to help us do that.

I want to point out that flipping the bell time so that our high school students started later did not create the third tier.

We were having three tiers no matter what.

Flipping the bell times was simply putting our teenagers in a later start time to match what is best for them biologically.

So I think we're getting some things mixed up together.

I just want to clarify that.

I also want to clarify with you Peggy that no matter what we decide either today or whatever the city council decides we are adding 20 minutes to the school day.

That's correct.

That's correct.

I know a lot of families have been upset about that and I think they've got it mixed up with this whole discussion about two tiers and I think the two tiers is causing the 20 minutes.

No.

The 20 minutes is something that was negotiated in our collective bargaining agreement.

We're actually restoring some time to the school year that was cut many years ago due to budget cuts.

But that is going to happen no matter what.

Whether we have two tiers or three tiers or if we even God forbid went back to 23 start times or 26. So I think one of the issues with the city is where they want to find the source of the funding for this.

And the question has been should it come out of the family and education levy funds.

Peggy can you address the possibility or the impossibility of the city tapping its traffic camera funds because as we know the city has set up cameras near our schools and has caught traffic infractions and has been able to raise money that way to the tune of is it 14 million dollars?

Is that correct?

That's my recollection of the amount.

The city budget is developed on a different cycle than we are.

And so in fact although that money was collected and we thought it might be a potential to actually fund bell times.

What we found is that the city had already allocated and budgeted all that money for this year.

So they started to look for other ways to fund the 2.3 million dollars.

Okay because that's a shame because that seemed like that would make sense since after all the funds were raised in conjunction with our schools.

So well perhaps the city can find a different a different place a different source to make this possible.

in terms of how much the city the district will be reimbursed.

I mean for the 2.3 million we've been told that the state will reimburse our transportation costs at 90 percent.

Nine zero percent.

and if that applies here then that would mean that of the 2.3 million we would be reimbursed at 2.07 million if 90 applied to that.

So what do we know about what the reimbursement would be or do we know at all?

Well I can just say that traditionally we have received between 95 and 100 percent.

I do know maybe 90 percent is what the rest of the state gets reimbursed but

Yeah I don't know where the 90 percent came from.

I have not heard that number before.

I thought I'm sorry I thought you told us that at a work session recently.

No.

I don't believe I did.

No.

I don't believe so.

I don't recall.

What I heard was that it has changed.

The state's algorithm or formula has changed and now.

Let me restate this.

The state's formula has not changed in a way that impacts this.

So what's changed is the state.

It's our practice.

So the state's funding formula pays you based on the number of students.

So riders and the number of destinations.

Right.

And so when we go from three tiers to two tiers we're not increasing the number of destinations nor are we increasing the number of riders.

so the amount that we're being paid today will probably stay about the same and the added cost for 2.3 we wouldn't get any more dollars for that.

There'll be a little bit of an offset when we open four new schools because we'll have four new destinations next year but it won't be enough under current projections to make up you know for fully for anywhere close to 2.3.

That's not the case under current projections.

Okay.

So this idea that the state reimburses transportation for the district is a myth.

It's not a myth.

They're fully funding the formula.

It doesn't mean they're fully funding every district's transportation costs.

That distinction has been made by the legislature in several and many committee hearings and school districts across the state have said that there is a distinct difference.

So recently when the formula changed Seattle had been on the high end of the reimbursement rate mostly because we were not being compared analytically to anyone else because there's no one else close to our size.

And so as long as our costs were growing at a pace that matched the implicit price deflator or the COLA costs that the state was increasing the allocation by we are fine.

But going to two tiers goes beyond that.

And so there's going to be a gap.

Okay.

And so you say in that gap is 2.3 million every year.

I don't know that we don't know that it's exactly 2.3 every year.

I mean that's based on current estimates that's what we know today.

We need to end the year figure out what our total costs were for transportation and then we'll be able to do a new projection for next year.

And the and the out years.

So.

in terms of the.

Can I add one thing.

Can I add one thing.

So in the formula even though the state increased COLA costs we have to remember too that they aren't necessarily covering all of our costs when they increase the COLA right.

There's always more to be borne by us at the district level.

And so that's also factoring in for us.

Okay and how does I'm sorry I'm not following how that applies right here.

I think I think it's more potential for the unfunded gap to grow.

Let me say it that way.

Well.

I feel like we've been told slightly different things over the course of this whole process and it's been a bit difficult to follow.

But what I what I do know is that like I said earlier that the current system right now has been a hardship for families and I remember when we passed the transportation standards either last year or the year before.

I put in an amendment to change the three tier start time five minutes earlier.

That was all we could possibly do and you know splitting a bit of a difference there and that was something but it's just not enough.

and so as Jill mentioned you know what are we going to do in terms of fairness if we have some families who feel they're in the third most difficult tier year after year after year.

Do we trade it off with others and what does that cost look like and are there some other costs that we're not thinking of when we have the three tiers.

And so You know I still feel compelled to support this.

I still feel compelled to encourage the city to find funds that everybody feels comfortable with and doing making a change that families have asked for that will simplify everyone's schedule both private and in school.

And I believe this is the best in the best interest of our students.

Director Pinkham.

Can I get some clarification on where you're saying the number of riders and the number of destinations is kind of what determines we're being reimbursed and how that relates to how we say who's eligible to have ride a bus.

Can we address that just by making hey let's make it a half a mile that people are the walk zone or who sets the walk zones to you know is there a way that we can increase the number of riders and number of destinations.

So destinations are the number of schools or programs that we deliver students to.

So by virtue of adding more schools we're increasing our number of destinations.

We are not allowed to provide transportation for students that live closer to than a mile to a school.

So we can't go down to a half mile unless there's particular safety issues and we get a waiver essentially from the state.

We could put more students on buses or we can move more kids from buses onto metro depending on what the transportation standards are.

And as we look to the future on how we're going to manage our transportation budget if in fact that becomes an issue for us and money becomes tighter that may be some of the suggestions that we'll be coming back with to start to manage that budget.

For instance it may be that we will say that we would put students who are middle school students on metro if they live between a mile and two miles of the school so that we can we know that it's less costly for us to use Metro.

So there might be some additional options that we can do to help manage the funding that we're getting from the state and our ability to deliver a full program.

Sets the one mile or.

Yes.

OK.

Never mind.

Thank you right now.

Director Burke.

Building on what director Pinkham just asked our individual skill center sites do those represent individual destinations by reinforcing our skill center programs.

Does that essentially increase our reimbursement rate for transportation.

Not if they're at a school.

If they were outside of the school area then yes we could consider that as another destination.

So if a student at a particular high school has to go to a different high school because it's located at a high school site it disappears.

That's correct.

That's our sort of our two between school programs.

And we have a lot of that in the district.

Are there any other questions or comments.

I guess this question is for.

This is a finance question.

I just want to have assurance that what you told us is that there is potential and I understand the lack of lack of certainty in this but there expense for the foreseeable future for multiple years as a result of taking this vote.

That's possible.

I want to emphasize it could be less.

It could be less than that.

Is it going to be zero?

I don't think it's going to be zero.

But and it could be all the way up to two point three.

Thank you.

How much.

What percentage does the state currently reimburse us with our three tiers.

Yeah.

So so I have 16 17 was a little bit more than 95 percent.

OK.

So we have been usually 98 to 100 percent this year.

You're thinking more than 96 97 percent.

I think our latest projections for 16 17. So we think we right now have a gap about seven hundred thousand dollars that we're short seven hundred thousand dollars.

So whatever the math is on that.

I don't have it in my head.

But wouldn't two tiers be more efficient in some respects?

Not under the formula aspect.

It it may be better for kids.

It may be all the things that you're discussing but we're within the confines of the formula and how the formula funds us.

Director Burke.

the finance part of this is a is a big challenge especially because it is an unknown.

What happens with McCleary what happens with the formula what happens with our own demographics and sites and students and enrollment.

So recognizing that historically that has been reimbursed at a higher level slightly higher level than just the recent past.

And so we're looking at potentially an ongoing expense or an ongoing imbalance between our reimbursement and our revenue.

What I heard.

I heard it with what it felt like a degree of confidence is that we're looking at we're recognizing that that is a ongoing challenge because really how many people think that the state is fully going to fund transportation.

You know if we're betting on that that's probably not Not the best approach.

And so I'm hearing a commitment from from from Peggy and her team to continue looking at alternate revenue to make up the difference but also looking at cost reductions and you know the our per student cost on Metro is slightly lower than our per student cost on yellow buses on school buses.

And so because we're only a few percent off that working those things over the next few years we can continue to try to drive that deficit to as small as possible is what I'm hearing.

No guarantees but that's the that's the part that gives me the confidence that I believe because this is the right thing to do that I will be supporting it.

only that this is a profoundly difficult vote and we should probably take the conversation here and take the video snippet.

And if it all turns into a handbasket next year we can look at ourselves.

But I don't believe that's going to happen.

I believe that the brainpower in this building together with our community can make this work and sometimes you gotta stretch.

Do I like the concept that we could do a perpetuity 2.3.

Not at all.

It makes me sick to my stomach.

No question about it.

Do I think it's the right thing to do.

Yeah I do.

Yes.

and I'll add to that.

You can hear me.

OK.

And then there's some feedback happening tonight.

I apologize that I appreciate resourcefulness that has come from Peggy and and her department on this.

and my understanding is the majority of the city council supports this the idea of two tiers.

It's just a matter of how to fund it.

And I know from the hearing from the public you know a pretty significant group ratio supports the two tiers as well.

So I think there's some degree of consensus that this is the right direction to go.

It's just a matter of the funding.

so I do appreciate what Director Burke just said and what Peggy you've already done in terms of finding ways to make things work and so I am going to I'm going to invest in that belief that we can make it work and it is in the best interest of our students and that there are some costs involved by not simplifying our bell times for our families.

Costs that our families are currently bearing and I really want to relieve them of that and make this something that we're committed to.

And so I will be voting yes on this tonight.

Director Patu.

So this is a very interesting conversation.

This is something that we've actually, I guess it went off.

You're back on.

this is actually something that we've worked on for a while and you know nothing is ever perfect but you know in order for us to know what's whether it's going to work or not work we've got to push forward on it and I believe that we made the right choice.

We went from three to two and we realized that a lot of our communities and parents support this and I think it's you know we finally found something that we think is going to work for our district.

The money yes 2.3 is a lot of money but I feel very confident that the city council will actually look at this and realize that you know what this is for all our kids in Seattle and unless we move this forward it's not going to happen and you know we've actually I think this year has been a great year for us building relationship with the city.

and them helping us in especially at this time where we don't have any money.

And so I believe that the city actually hears us loud and clear and realize that you know this is a time that they can actually be able to help us in terms of our needs right now because the state is not funding us.

And this is for our kids.

You know if it's going to work for our kids and I said let's move forward and have faith in ourselves.

And so this is something that's right for all the kids and move forward.

money will come so I vote yes.

Any other questions or comments on this item?

We're not going to go home tonight.

You know again I just want to say I fully support that we do go to this two tiered bus system because it's the best for our students and echoing Director Harris here that he's confident that we will find a way.

And I just I'm just curious as to then when's the next big thing going to come up that we'll find a way to fund the next project and it's going to just keep chipping away and away and away and then we're going to hear from parents community why are we down to X number of teachers when we had this many before.

Do we just say well at least your children are getting to school at a decent hour now.

This is a tough decision to make and in having faith in where we're going to go and where we're going to find that money and placing the priorities.

So right now I think we're saying priority is our students getting to school at a safe time.

and seeing that you know they're taken care of and that yes we're not burdening our parents that have to with this three tier system with the additional costs you know putting that on them as well.

But you know there's other things that I've been kind of going through in mind too when we hear about the they hate Seattle you know what the Seattle School District does and what they can do that we're not the ideal for the Washington state when they look at giving out money because of the situation that we have with their big city and then is this eventually where the state's going to say oh well we're going to restrict transportation for everyone because look what Seattle was able to do.

Well other cities can't necessarily do this.

They can't afford to give a couple of million dollars to the school district to help them out when they're in a jam.

So I think we've got to feel fortunate where we're at here and get that message to the legislature get to Olympia let them know you got to fix what's going on now.

you're putting the school districts the communities at odds with one another where what's best for our students but then what do we have to sacrifice to get there to do that.

This is a tough decision and I will reluctantly vote yes for it.

Any other questions or comments.

Check the roll call please.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

No.

Director Burke.

Aye.

This motion has passed by a vote.

Hold on a second.

Director Peters.

Aye.

My apologies this vote has passed this motion has passed by a vote of 6 to 1.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you everybody for your careful thought on that matter.

Item number three city of Seattle families and education levy funding for Seattle Public Schools for summer learning 2017 and 2018 school year.

I move that the board authorize the superintendent to accept the grant funds totaling sixteen million nine hundred and five two hundred and twenty one dollars from the city of Seattle's family and education levy funded programs with the city of Seattle Department of Education and Early Learning for the family support worker elementary middle and high school innovation middle school linkage and school nurses.

with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to accept the grant funds.

This came before audit and finance on May 11 for consideration.

I second the motion.

Have there been any changes since introduction?

No there have been no changes.

Are there any questions or comments about this item?

If you have nothing to add then we'll go to Ms. Scheich.

Roll call please.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Director Burke.

Director Blanford.

Director Peters.

This motion has passed unanimously.

Item number 4 budget development and financial management system BDMS contract awards.

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute contracts with SHI International Corp in the amount of two hundred fifty thousand dollars for the purchase of Questica licensing and with Questica Inc in the amount of six hundred ninety five thousand fifty dollars for the purchase of professional services hosting maintenance and support services in the form of the draft agreements dated May 19 excuse me May 29 2017 and attached to the school board action report with any minor deletions additions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent to take any necessary actions to implement the contract.

I second the motion.

This came before A&F April 18 for consideration.

after the bar was introduced last month we have finalized negotiations with the with the vendor resulting in the amount of professional services being increased.

And the other significant change in the bar not significant change but the other change in the bar was separating out that there'll be additional implementation costs for phase two once that scope of work has been determined.

Does that second change have any significant.

Does it make any significant difference to how this contract will be.

It will be for more money.

It won't make any significant change in the contract itself.

So we'll have most of the work done.

There'll be some part of phase two as yet we have not been able to develop that scope of work.

So we'll be coming back and giving updates to audit and finance and then if it's significant enough we'll come back to the full board.

And will this cost cover both phase one and phase two.

This is phase one cost.

In the bar there's a section in the financial section there's a to be determined that's highlighted for phase two.

Total project budget for this work is two point six million dollars.

Could you give us a short paragraph of what this is Questica for the record.

We're talking in code here.

I know we talked about it at intro.

So Questica will be developing we will have a new budget development system meaning we will have a new interface a new system that where we'll be recording the budget into and it will interface with our accounting software known as SAP that's the vendor for the accounting software.

It will replace the spot tool which is the tool that the principals use to budget.

It will be used then both for the central office budgets as well as for all of the school budgets.

central office budget process will start this November is a timeline and then phase two would bring the schools into the new system the following year in the fall of 2018 we would start that work.

Accuracy and why is this a good thing?

Transparency accuracy and the old system is not doing so well.

And do we save human capital time as well?

Yes we will save human capital time as well.

There's a lot of manual work that happens with the budget right now and we expect that a lot of that will be replaced with automated reports.

Director Blackford.

you basically answered the concern or the issue that I wanted to be raised especially in light of the conversation that we just had about spending money that there is efficiency to be gained from using this program which in the end result will result in us saving money and will allow us if I'm remembering the conversation correctly will allow our building leaders to spend less time in the budgeting process so they can spend more time being the instructional leaders that we're hoping that they'll be.

Correct.

For example position control.

Right now my staff has to manually reconcile the same numbers four times between all of the systems that we have.

That's a lot of staff time.

So that's one of the areas of improvement that will be garnering.

There's no further questions or comments about this item.

Oh director.

Just clarification again where it says in the form of the draft agreements what was the draft portion of the agreements.

What's.

We didn't have the dollar amount and some of the terms and conditions had to be solidified.

So should that changing be should draft be taken out of the motion or.

Because in the motion it says in the form of the draft agreements.

I think that falls under whatever small adjustments deletions or minor adjustments may be necessary.

I believe that that kind of falls under that category.

It's pretty well said there could maybe I don't you know I believe it's mostly said that there could be a slight modification somewhere along the way not to price but to other terms and conditions.

So I just guess that Quesca may come back and say oh hey I want to make a change and

It would be an immaterial change at this point.

There's no more material changes to this contract that are happening.

Thank you.

No further questions or comments and check the roll call please.

Director Burke.

aye.

Director Geary aye.

Director Blanford aye.

Director Harris aye.

Director Patu aye.

Director Pinkham aye.

Director Peters aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

Item number 5 BEX 4 and BTA for approval of the site specific educational specifications for the modernization at Lincoln High School project.

I move that the school board approve the site specific educational specifications dated May 26 2017 for the building excellence for BEX for and the building technology academics and athletics for BTA for modernization at Lincoln High School project as attached to the board action report.

Motion.

May we please hear from the chair of the operations committee.

This item was heard by the operations committee on April the 20th and moved forward for approval.

So Richard Best director of capital projects and planning for Seattle Public Schools revisions to this document from introduction includes some adjacency bubble diagrams that show how the classrooms are located at Lincoln High School based upon director Burke's request at introduction.

So we postponed having this item approved on May 17th so we could allow Bassetti architects some time to include that information so you would have a sense of the floor plan.

I'd also note that I heard a community members response tonight about community use of this facility.

I would just note that would be premature at this time.

We just have hired the planning principal that planning principal will begin to engage in those conversations with the community as to how this facility will be used after hours.

So open up to your questions.

Director Patu.

That's actually not a question but I would like to say that it's really appalling for me to actually to been waiting for many years for Raria Beach to be remodeled and here I see nothing against remodeling Lincoln and here Lincoln is going to be remodeling sometime this year and for me that's I have to pause when I see this because I just feel like it's so unfair.

So I'm going to vote no on this item.

I want to thank you for taking this back to the team and and reworking it a little bit.

I appreciate the sort of the variance analysis where you looked at the comparison between what's in Lincoln versus the EdSpec because I think that really sort of emphasizes some of the the places where this site is more challenging than others in or than the idealized EdSpec site.

and so there's a couple of things that are in there that you know the variance has helped bring up and I just wanted to understand what is the flexibility around that.

You know in one of the examples it talks about large group conference rooms and in the Lincoln plan we actually have one above the ed spec.

and then but there's some other things like teacher teacher planning space where we were below and we're using flex space classrooms.

Understanding that this is a this is sort of a flexible plan how.

How much.

implementation flexibility.

Is there like can that large group conference room be a classroom or is it.

It could be a very small classroom for a very small population of students.

It could definitely be used for staff planning area.

OK.

So there is flexibility.

One of the directions that you know we have given to gave to Bassetti architects at the outset of this project and they did participate in the development of high school ed specs from a district wide perspective is to make sure that our facilities are nimble and that they can be reconfigured for other uses that they need and they have done that in their configurations of sheer walls.

They've identified to the design team five year walls 10 year walls and then long term walls where we have sheer bracings for seismic support.

and so very cognizant of that.

Director Burke.

Thank you.

One of the points was brought up to me by some constituents were that the CTE space doesn't have adjacency with the some of the learning areas and that possibly locating that more approximately to the maker space or some of the some of those areas might get more synergy.

Is that one of the areas of flexibility or is the infrastructure pretty set in that.

We made a recent investment in the CTE space in the southeast wing of Lincoln High School for a medical program.

It was a significant capital investment approximately half a million dollars and so it would be difficult to duplicate but we do have maker spaces in the main building that we could utilize for CTE use as well.

Okay and the I've got a couple other community concerns that I think the EdSpec describes it well around the sports.

I think the way it's cited that the program room counts support space and infrastructure well below requirements.

I think that's been been known by the designers and the community.

and so I this isn't something to answer but just to make sure that everybody recognizes that this was one of the biggest concerns that people brought have been bringing to my meetings because it's the one that I haven't been able to address by saying yes we're getting a planning principle in place.

It's it's a physical limitation that we haven't been able to overcome.

And so to put out a request that we.

try to be more explicit and proactive on what that's going to look like and help community visualize that.

And then the last question relates to city infrastructure which isn't particularly I didn't see particularly covered in this document.

I've heard that the sewer lines may be at capacity and that by adding this building we could be sort of at the ragged edge.

I'm curious is there work going on with the city to look at localized city improvements concurrent with this project.

I know that's something you've done on other projects.

That's a question that I'm going to punt to the project manager Steve Moore.

I don't know the level of that.

That level of detail.

We're doing the typical connections making it to the existing sewer line but there's nothing beyond that no major sewer improvements downstream from from the school itself.

but that it's been identified by city planners or the proper people that we have capacity there.

We do.

We have had our guidance meeting with both SPU and SDOT to review that with them and we're moving forward we've been approved by the 60 percent student street improvement plan and we're moving to the 90 percent.

So it has been reviewed.

Thank you.

Director Blanford.

To the point that was made before Director Burke spoke, I'm wondering is the primary reason that Lincoln is on the list to be renovated.

Does it have to do with the capacity challenges that we're facing currently?

It does.

And those capacity challenges are at Ballard High School Roosevelt High School and then also at Garfield High School.

And so Lincoln is able to offer significant relief to Ballard and Roosevelt some relief to Garfield.

There is a high school boundary task force at this time studying that how we can offer more relief.

So yeah.

I have questions about two areas of the ed specs.

I know this building quite well.

I had a student that was in the building for about at least four years.

So the performing arts area and the auditorium is the plan to to keep the existing auditorium in the existing art space.

What are the plans?

Yes the plan is to keep the existing auditorium we will be making some minor improvements Director Peters so that we do not trigger City of Seattle substantial alterations requirements if we trigger those requirements we will need to make a multi-million dollar investment into the East buildings.

I very much appreciate the fact that the auditorium will be retained because I think at one point there was talk about demolishing it and I cannot emphasize enough how much that auditorium is used by the students in Lincoln the students in Hamilton and I have seen it in standing room only capacity.

So I'm glad that we're keeping that.

I understand there's some acoustic changes that could be made and there's some other ideas that could be done on a smaller scale to improve.

the use of the space.

And those are the types of improvements we're talking about both acoustic and then stage lighting.

Fantastic.

My other question which was an area that was always challenging area in the building is the dining area.

How much capacity are you adding to the dining space because right now it's wholly inadequate.

The dining area is being totally renovated.

Fantastic.

we have actually a virtual tour on the website that I can direct you to and you can literally do a 360 degree tour of that new commons dining area and it will be on two levels not just one level.

Okay that's good because it's been inadequate for a number of reasons and many years.

But also we have a problem with our high school students going off campus to eat because there's not enough space for them to sit.

So anything we can do to keep them on campus here and have a good healthy district produced meal would be great.

Is the kitchen going to be a functioning kitchen?

Will they be able to make make meals in this kitchen?

The kitchen will be a functioning full service kitchen.

OK.

And the dining commons area has a nice connection to the outdoors.

So you could eat outdoors on a sunny day like we had experience today.

And then at the two levels are connected to one another.

So it will actually be a very exciting space.

That's great because you're going to have the district's going to have serious competition with all the eateries in Wallingford that are just a couple blocks away.

All right.

Thank you.

Director Pinkham.

So in regards to the capacity issue how much maybe capacity relief would occur if Rainier Beach had some renovations and maybe added some more space.

would that have possibly helped that as well given the director's concern that hey you know we hear we've been asking you know Rainier Beach being on some renovation now a new high school's going in and they're getting renovation in the meantime it feels like okay what's happening to Rainier Beach do we have to wait for the next levy and next levy to help out you know is was that considered about how we can use maybe some money to help renovate Rainier Beach to maybe attract more students to alleviate capacity at Garfield or other schools?

Director Pink I'm not going to try to avoid your question but I'm not sure I'm going to get at it either and I'll just say that we are looking at Rainier Beach we're implementing a facilities master plan for Rainier Beach as part of our BEX V levy efforts.

I haven't done the student pixelation of kids to understand that we are getting that type of information brought forth to us from our enrollment planning to the high school boundary task force.

That's a question that we are looking at from the high school boundary task force is can Rainier Beach provide some relief to those schools specifically Garfield and but I don't have an answer today.

Okay as long as it's hopefully it's being considered someplace about how we can use our current facilities to help.

And I know that we're missing a high school in that area at the closure of Queen Anne.

So it is something that we need.

But I just wonder what else has been thought of.

And then also brought up in public comment that northeast parking lot.

Do you have any update on that?

They're talking about being leased instead of being more used for the school.

There is a small portion of the Northeast parking lot that is leased to an adjacent building owner.

It's a requirement of their master use permit.

We do not at this time believe that we will need those spaces but we are working with that building owner to indicate to be able to utilize those spaces in after hours events.

Lincoln High School one of the strong advantages to Lincoln High School is it's well served by transit.

So you are looking at ways to maybe that the school just school can use that lot more.

Yes.

That was I think one of the concerns that was brought up you know has that been addressed.

Thank you.

Director Harris.

How many parking places are we talking about.

49.

OK and every high school I've been anywhere close to is overflowing with cars and those cars get parked on the neighborhood streets and some of our neighbors are particularly vociferous about the cars being parked on the neighborhood streets.

So I appreciate the adjacent building owner master use issues but does that trump our needs.

No that would not trump our needs.

So when do we look at that and when do we pull the plug on them if we do.

So we conducted a transportation study and a parking study as part of our state Environmental Protection Act requirements SEPA requirements that was looked at and it was not deemed that we would need that parking lot in order to meet our school demands.

and that was with upheld by the hearing examiner as well.

It was challenged and upheld.

I have a follow up question then.

What sort of community engagement did we do with the neighbors because we truly need to be a good neighbor.

Yeah.

I know we've had several community meetings with the neighborhood concerning parking and transportation.

Mr. Best is correct.

We've had a number of community meetings.

We also had a representative from the Wongford Community Center part of the school design advisory team.

So they voiced concerns during that time.

So we've had outreach to discuss the traffic concerns.

Maybe we could do a one pager for a Friday memo giving us a compilation of the community feedback because there's community engagement and then there's community engagement.

Understood.

Thank you.

Director Burke.

since since my colleague so kindly opened Pandora's box on on parking.

I know that one of the concepts that I've heard multiple people ask me about is the idea of putting subsurface parking and putting field space on top of it.

and I think the understanding is that that's been cost prohibitive given our budget situation.

But I'm wondering is there a has there been a feasibility or is there like a nominal budget cost that was identified for that option that ruled it out.

I can tell you that an underground parking stall one underground parking stall has a cost of between fifty and seventy five thousand dollars.

How many underground parking stalls can you get for 2.3 million dollars?

And costs looked at for Lincoln are between 10 to 15 million dollars for underground parking.

So that was something that was looked at.

Okay I think we've had enough questions and comments on this item.

I don't see any more.

So with that the check the roll call please.

Director Blanford.

Director Geary.

Director Burke.

Director Harris.

Director Patu.

No.

Director Pinkham.

No.

Director Peters.

This motion has passed by a vote of 5 to 2.

All right.

So we're on to our final action item of the evening BTA 4 award contract K 5 0 9 3 for relocation and set up of portable classrooms at multiple school sites.

I move that school board authorize the superintendent to execute contract number K 5 0 9 3. with King County Directors Association KCDA for relocation and set up of portable classrooms and multiple school sites in the contract scheduled value amount of $391,931.64 cents.

plus Washington state sales tax in the form of the draft agreement attached to school board action report with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the contract.

Immediate action is in the best interest of the district.

I second the motion.

May we please hear from the chair of the operations committee.

This item was heard by the ops committee on May the 18th and move forward for consideration.

Can you speak to the fact that this is an intro action item?

Yes.

This we are asking that it be both introduced and then requesting action tonight so we can get Casey to under KCDA under contract so that we can have them perform the work this summer.

the next board meeting is not until June 28th and that would be not advantageous for getting a purchase order cut and then having them perform the work in the months of July and August.

So we are requesting that it be approved tonight as well.

I will note that we opened bids on this project and we actually had no bidders.

And so this is why we are using the purchasing cooperative through KCDA with William Scotsman.

They will relocate 15 portables in the amount of $391,931.64.

And if you look in the agreement at attachment A it tells you where those portables are going to be relocated to.

They'll be coming from different school sites including McGilver Elementary as we build a lunchroom there.

They'll also be coming from Boren and Schmitz Park and then Washington Middle School as well so.

Director Blanford.

Can you speak to the big climate that resulted in zero bids coming in.

The contractors were concerned that about being able to meet our schedule and also being able to relocate a significant amount of portables in a very short time.

And so we received no bids.

That was a surprise to us.

We had anticipated we did have one bidder at a pre bid walkthrough.

and we had anticipated getting two bids on this project so that was a surprise.

We immediately reached out to KCDA and to the William Scotsman Company who is under contract with KCDA to relocate portables.

Getting this contract approved will then help us get our place in line.

My question is focused around the attachment A vis-a-vis the waitlist discussion and capacity that's going on right now.

This shows four portables going into Garfield High School which I believe the original estimate was that we needed eight but we didn't have space for any.

This allocates four and then we have two going to Ingram which has more space to place them and is soon to have a 500 seat addition and has people on a wait list that are willing to relieve.

So my question is not specifically what drives this but is this is this locking in our student assignment and wait list and capacity with this decision.

It wouldn't be locking in, no.

This would be providing flexibility to meet those needs, Director Burke, but it would not be locking in the wait list decisions.

So, for example, if there were a compelling reason to instead place two at Garfield and four at Ingram, is that still viable within this structure?

We could implement that by a change order.

and we will be working with enrollment planning because there is a June June open enrollment adjustment period in which we will be looking at final numbers for September 1 and where these portables all need to be located.

Thank you.

Director Harris.

I want to follow up on director Burke's comment because I think I understand the hypothetical and it's certainly one that I've heard from constituents that are very concerned about the way list.

That if Ingram is willing to take more folks then there might not be as many folks at Garfield next year and at Roosevelt both of which are set up for four portables each and they're already extraordinarily cramped spaces.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

And I can say that I respond to I provide seats.

Enrollment planning identifies student counts.

I do not identify student counts.

OK.

But y'all work really closely together.

We work very closely together.

So that one isn't leading the other in terms of this timing crazy that we're in.

Is that correct?

I would say that we take direction from enrollment planning as to what they believe the capacity of the school will be.

We make no decisions on that.

But you're changing the capacity with the movement of these portables.

I'm just trying to figure out who the dog and who the tail is here.

How it works.

Yeah.

We're changing capacity because this is the projected enrollment at those schools and we're trying to make sure we can provide classrooms for those kiddos.

For those students.

Director Harris.

Thank you.

So along those same lines.

So we have been told we need to wait till June 16 to find out some staffing decisions and some enrollment decisions that will impact wait lists.

Wouldn't it then stand would it also follow that the where we place these portables would be dependent on the June 16th data.

It is dependent on the June 16th data.

We need to get a contract in place.

with William KCDA and William Scotsman and then if we have to shift portables we do that by change order Director Peters or we will not have classrooms ready by the start of school.

Okay I think I see we got two different lines of thought happening.

You're tasked with moving some existing portables to where they're going to be needed.

So that's what you need to do.

Correct.

Based on what enrollment planning has indicated.

But there is some flexibility in where these end up based on what our enrollment numbers are.

Is that correct.

But that's not in your department.

That's not in my department.

Okay.

Correct.

All right because I'm looking at these numbers and I already know that our I mean our Ballard our high school's Ballard, Roosevelt and Garfield are already extremely full.

I mean isn't Ballard close to 2000 this year?

I mean it's really big.

So the idea of adding two more classrooms to Ballard, four more to Garfield.

I mean this is baffling to me. and where we would put these.

So I know this was not your decision so you're probably not the one to answer these questions but I'm just looking at these and trying to understand what the vision is here and whether we're doing this in the right sequence.

JoLynn did you want to speak to this?

Thank you.

Assistant Superintendent for Business and Finance.

So it's my understanding that they're staffing for the attendance area needs that they're projecting at these schools.

So they're projecting a certain amount of attendance area enrollment and that's what they're moving the portables to address.

Does that help clarify?

Well that's what we presume but the underlying estimates is what I'm wondering about and how that works with the wait lists and whether how set in stone these locations are you know I'm wondering about.

So let me just say this as far as I know we have a plan for how many portables we're planning on moving on each site.

That's what we're driving towards next week as far as enrollment updates and seats and staffing and all the things that are going into what will roll out next week as far as a wait list adjustments at that point.

If there were other decisions made later to come off that plan and change the location of the portables that's something for the fall at this point.

Okay so that would happen later on and with it would be change orders.

Correct.

It's change orders.

We will make one final adjustment for this and director Peters historically realized I've only been here three years.

It's less than 10 percent of these portables will move.

So with 16 we're talking maybe max two portables that will shift.

I don't anticipate they will shift from Ingraham, Ballard, Garfield and Roosevelt at this time.

Just because I've seen the numbers of kids going there.

I guess we need to have a different conversation about where are these portables going to go?

What kind of impact is that going to have?

I'm also trying to divide the student body up by the number of counselors who already have about 400 students each.

I mean the impact of this is really the implication of this is really disturbing.

I guess my curiosity is that if we're so over populated in these schools why do we continue to put kids there.

I mean it just doesn't make any sense to me.

Well as assistant superintendent Berge said these are attendance area schools that kids have the option of going there.

I mean this is their first choice.

It's their home school.

So.

but don't we have wait lists with a considerable number of folks that are looking to get out of those schools.

I'm not the wait list expert director Harris I apologize.

I can't really speak to wait lists.

I know that we have wait lists.

I just take the capacity information that I've been given from our enrollment planning group and try to provide seats.

I'm not the person who identifies.

And I'm certainly not trying to personalize this because I have enormous respect for you your department as well as for enrollment planning.

However.

This makes no sense in terms of a planning continuum to me and it feels not right.

Director Burke.

I was wondering if you could I'm just scanning through it and I'm looking for a schedule.

Does the document here.

Can you point me to something that's in here around a schedule.

I do know that we are supposed to have this effort complete by the end of August Director Burke so I don't see it and I actually see a reference in in the initial contract if you look at paragraph 2.2 it says see attachment A and then when you go to attachment A you do not see the schedule.

Okay.

So and it could be that those are the conversations that will occur after we get the contract signed so they know where we are in their queue so that we can get the schedule identified.

I guess I'm I'm feeling several kinds of awkward around this recognizing that there's a sense of urgency which is the difficult part for me.

But we have uncertainty.

I feel like I have uncertainty and I'm hearing from my colleagues we have uncertainty about our actual enrollment numbers that this is supposed to be based on.

and this is coming as an intro action item and it doesn't include schedule.

I am not feeling like I can support it on this round.

I'm hoping that possibly we could spin it up at the at the next meeting at the end of the month.

At the next meeting at the end of the month I will guarantee we will not have these classrooms in place for start of school.

So I just want to be clear about consequences.

and I appreciate that were there that level of urgency it would have been great to have had this discussion previously.

Richard so no matter what some portables need to be moved off of some.

That's one half of this right.

Correct.

And they're all they're all listed towards the beginning of this document.

You mentioned.

Washington.

McGillivray.

So that has to happen no matter what.

Is that correct?

Or is there something we're going to find out on June 16th that says actually no we need to keep those.

No I'm saying no from associate superintendent.

No Hamilton we will be opening will specific a menial school have issues really portables at Hamilton last year that they would only be placed there for one year.

It was one of the requirements that the landmarks board placed upon Seattle Public Schools.

So is this half of the process something that is certain that you certainly are going to have to move these portables from these current locations.

Is that correct?

We have to move them from McGilbrough.

The other locations we do not need to move them from.

OK.

If I can make a comment.

So just in I understand that this is intro in action but this is really about a bid of moving forward with school operations and that there has to be so many moves that will happen regardless of wait lists or things like that.

There's an amount of portable moves that are going to happen every year for us.

and this is a normal part of our business.

So we have to get teed up and put something out there that starts that process at least and put some placeholder in for us.

Am I correct in guessing that if we vote yes on this tonight nothing is going to happen as early as before the 16th of June which is next week.

No we'll be in conversations with KCDA making sure they have this contract getting our place in line so that we can get these portables moved and then we may have to adjust that based upon what we learn on June 16th.

But there's a large work effort that will start tomorrow and getting a purchase order cut for KCDA and getting our place in line and having conversations with William Scotsman as to where the portables are coming from and where they're going to.

So if the conversation starts to new information on the 16th will that constitute a change order if we have to give them different directions on where these portables go next week.

It might constitute a change.

It would constitute a change order.

Yes.

To answer your question it may not be a financial change order just a change of this from this location to this location.

I hope we would have the flexibility to do because it should be driven by our needs not by just something we have based on today's reality or projections.

And you say the change order might not have a cost associated with it.

It may not.

It may not but it might.

It might.

All right.

Thank you Dr. Nyland please.

So, I think, am I on?

I don't think so.

I think the I'm hearing is we're allocating portables to school sites that are already full to overflowing.

We've heard the request to move the waitlist.

The waitlist presumably could take pressure off of Garfield Ballard and Roosevelt.

but there's no room at Lincoln or at Ingram unless we put portables at Ingram.

So two issues I think that we're talking about.

One is existing portables and where they're going to go or existing or new portables and where they're going to go and that has a timeline associated with it.

I assume that the Garfield and Ballard pieces also and or Ingram also have permitting requirements and power and whatever utilities portables.

So I think that's if I'm right and if that's part of the consternation if the enrollment confirms on the 16th what we think we know today could those portables be moved from I guess instead of moving them to Garfield and Ballard could they be moved to Ingram or are there other considerations that means that that ship could get there in time.

Well we have been in the process of applying for building permits for all of these locations Dr. Nyland.

So.

So City of Seattle has worked historically very well with us on getting portables permitted.

They understand the problem so of trying to address student capacity.

So we may have a few more days of flexibility but not three weeks.

No we do not have three weeks.

On the 16th are we going to hear that we're not moving students out of Garfield Ballard or Roosevelt to Ingram because we don't have building permits for additional portables.

Is that going to be a rationale for not moving weightless.

To Ingram.

Yes.

That would not be a rationale.

OK.

So we are already in discussions with the city building use permit folks to get.

Frankly as many portables as we can cram in there until we get our 500 seat addition.

Are we in those kind of discussions on a fast track.

No we haven't been in those kind of conversations.

We've been in conversations about where we're going to place portables at Ingram recognizing that we're also probably going to be placing portables there again next year.

at Ingram.

Those are the conversations we've been having with the folks at the city of Seattle.

Are they fast track conversations.

I just don't want to come back here in a week and be told we cannot move additional students out of these overflowing schools because of that issue.

No that will not be an issue.

Thank you.

Dr. Pinkham.

I appreciate the conversation we're having here and I'm just curious North Beach Elementary School one portable moving for a hundred thousand dollars whereas Roosevelt getting four for ninety seven.

Yeah so the numbers are all good when you say it may not change.

So again I don't know again where this North Beach Elementary is coming from another elementary school because it's equipped for an elementary school.

I do know that the North Beach portable is coming from McGilver Elementary School and I do know that there's some difficult roadways to work through and getting it from Madison Park through to North Beach which is upper northwest corner of the district.

So distance distance matters.

Distance matters and plus the school that I was at before that is probably equipped for an elementary school.

Correct.

Going to another elementary school.

Going to another elementary school.

Yeah.

And I think as far as my understanding of this is right now you got to prepare yourself to make sure you have adequate space for the attendance area students.

not what currently the enrollment may be or their own projections are.

We're working more with the attendance area students make sure we have the capacity for that.

Not what the wait lists are saying.

I'm working with the student counts that I'm getting from enrollment planning.

And enrollment planning is that just on the attendance area or is it including the wait lists and other projections.

I'm assuming it's including the wait lists as well.

Director Pinkham.

but they give me a number that says we need to provide this this many seats at this school.

We sit down with our capacity planning group and look at how we're providing how the building principals utilizing the school and how we provide those seats.

to I think what director Harris is trying to say OK who's weighing what is are we looking at the demand that's at the school are being asked or is it we're trying to build the capacity.

So that's I think kind of confusion.

We are responding to the demand that's been identified for us.

I'm certainly not knowledgeable about all this stuff but I'm 99 percent sure that we're responding to the enrollment projections for the neighborhood school not to the wait list.

Yeah I think irregardless of the waitlist, irregardless of the kids on the waitlist who want to leave Ballard, it's my understanding they still need these portables.

Just for the attendance area kids that still would be there.

True but the list that you gave us shows that you've got Ballard kids that want to go to Ingram which I guess we'd be approving the wait list one way.

We wouldn't be approving anybody that wanted to go from Ingram to Ballard.

And I think it might work.

The problem with all of this is it could work for one year and I've usually been in districts where we've done this.

and after three or four years everything is just so screwed up because everybody has gone every different place and you no longer have good counts.

Your enrollment projections are harder to make.

You're anyway.

I mean it could happen one year.

it can't happen the next year and that you can't if you're going to put four portables on Ingram to solve the problem that Garfield and Ballard at Roosevelt you can't do that for another year.

So another year from now you'd be saying all right now we have to go back to Garfield Ingram.

Garfield Ballard and Roosevelt to make those spaces.

So I mean it sounds like we can gather a little bit more information in the next few days and we can try to figure out what makes sense and get that information back to you.

And I guess to Director Harris's point that's a good point and I hope that's correct because that's what I heard before is that well we really can't get there from here to get Ingram portables.

So sounds like we do have that flexibility and we need to gather information in the next few days.

When does Lincoln go online again?

What year?

2019. 2019, okay.

So we've got...

In terms of distance matters as far as how these portables are moved.

It's unfortunate that we're going from McGill to North Beach.

You can't find a more distant, difficult bisection of this city.

from Schmitt's Park.

I actually think that's more direct, frankly.

I think Schmitt's Park might be easier.

These portables that were taking off the McGilvray site were taking off because it's where we want to locate the new lunchroom from McGilvray and there was really it was the only option.

So we have to move these portables off that site.

Right now I understand the moving off but the fact that those are the ones that were chosen for North Beach.

Does it have to be elementary to elementary?

These are well situated for an elementary school.

OK.

Because I mean Hamilton's a lot closer to North Beach but maybe the Hamilton one is going to Ballard.

I don't know.

OK.

But did somebody figure out what was what was the shortest distance and was that part of the calculation to keep the cost low.

Correct.

OK.

So there was some thought that went into that.

OK good.

Is it possible to put some kind of language in here that says or in what agreement that you have with this contractor that some things are going to be determined a week from now so that you're not locked into something that has to be changed next week with potential costs associated with potential change orders.

Well we deal with As you well are aware Director Peters we deal with construction change orders all the time.

So it's not because we recognize that some things may shift and it will you know at the close of open enrollment it will shift again.

So and so what it would be would be a change order to the contract to this contract.

I'm just trying to avoid any unnecessary costs or change orders if we know we're going to have some new information in less than seven days that might impact this.

I really need to get a contract in place with these folks to begin to get in their queue.

Coming back to that the bottom line is we definitely do need to move at least move some portables off of some sites.

That has to happen no matter what.

You need a contract in site in hand in order to get that moving as far as where they end up and how that affects our wait list.

That's something we don't completely know right now.

Correct.

I don't.

OK.

Director Harris.

Can we enhance the transparency of any change orders and how all of these different sticky wickets connect together in weekly Friday memos.

The waitlist issue has caused a huge trust break.

And then we add this on to it.

I and I frankly am beyond uncomfortable trying to figure out this.

What do you call it a hairball.

Hairball.

OK.

So.

So if we had some increased transparency and again charts are pretty terrific.

I would vote for this but but I really am insistent on that because the waitlist issue has been anything but transparent and it is extraordinarily troubling to me as a board member.

It is extraordinarily troubling to our constituents.

I was wondering if I could actually trouble our counsel to assist because I would like to actually propose an amendment to this bar.

And I'm wondering if it's if there's an appropriate way to add some language to the recommended motion that this will be approved and allow a contract to be issued but following the reconciliation of our enrollment numbers and wait lists at the end of the month or date certain the scope of which portables go to which sites will be reviewed with the full board.

Can I say one thing that may hopefully make that a moot point.

OK.

So staff in enrollment planning and budget are working back and forth to get those numbers for you on the wait list because they're a large as large a concern to us as they are to you.

And we're going to have numbers for you that include all high school moves moving all wait lists and what that looks like at any school with physical capacity which excludes Ballard Roosevelt and Garfield.

Okay so the list next week will show all the moves and what it will do to staffing and everything else for everything else for a school that has capacity.

Those are the three that enrollment planning has identified as not having physical capacity.

Ballard, Garfield and Roosevelt.

All the other wait lists will be on the list as an option.

Okay.

Because we've we've heard you.

Yeah.

I guess I would I appreciate that.

I guess what the question still holds is that you know the actual process to do that recognizing that this is.

I don't want to put this into a re-approval cycle.

I want to build in an explicit feedback point which sounds like you plan to provide anyways.

But it's really important to me if we're going to approve this as an intro action item that we have dates certain that the board will be briefed and have an opportunity to dialogue on what those portable assignments will be so we understand the theory of action and that we are all on board and not in a contentious fashion about it.

I think that's something that can bring next week is part of that discussion.

I'd like to clarify because I'm hearing the board say that they want the wait list for these three or four schools regardless of capacity because the portables could change the capacity.

So if we're going to provide all of the information except for Garfield, Ballard and Roosevelt I don't think that's what the board's expecting.

The board's expecting to know what the wait list numbers are for those three schools at least vis-a-vis Ingram.

Yeah they'll be provided that I think what they were outlining is that there's not room for Ballard Roosevelt and Garfield to receive.

We're not going to move anybody to those schools.

Correct.

All of the rest will be laid out.

I believe that Flip can speak to then the portable impact as well.

So this contract would really give Richard the green light to do the ones that we know aren't the issue and to start teeing up how many possible other moves that we might have.

So it starts the work.

There's a lot of the work that can be green lighted that's not of issue.

But getting started on that would be important.

And that date for that would be.

Please clarify your question.

The date for that discussion of when that data would be received.

So we will have we're having a work session on June 28th that includes that information and and the budget update as well as the waitlist impacts and what the choices might look like and what they might cost.

So then I would like to make a motion that we amend the recommended motion to include that the data regarding enrollment wait lists and possible adjustments to the scope in Appendix A be considered at the June 28th work session.

Second the motion.

Right.

They're just construction change orders.

We know we're going to do so many.

This allows us to do X many.

We don't need to know exactly where we're going with all of them or how many exactly we're doing.

We need to start moving forward with the ones that are already known and set.

Yeah.

Director Geary.

Does Director Burke's motion disrupt what it is that you need to do to move forward.

No, I think I can move forward with the idea that probably Ballard, we would hold out Ballard, Garfield, and Roosevelt to be the last schools that receive portables.

And we can start in the other areas.

And I'm hoping that enrollment planning will have some information before June 28th for at least to work for and we conclude that in a Friday memo to the board as Director Harris has suggested.

And Director Burke I just want John Sirkwe deputy general counsel my concern with the amendment is I just want to make sure that we can execute and move on the contract if it's worded in a way that allows the vendor to not move forward on moving our portables or to put us in the queue because there's contingencies built in that it's now subject to something that's going to happen June 28 then that could put off the ability to get portables in place to have classrooms.

So that's my not having that written out and having a chance to really stare at that and consult with Director Best in advance.

I'm not exactly sure how that would read and be taken by them.

I think I appreciate that because that's my intent as well is that we can initiate the contract work but that we just have a clear understanding that there is a feedback opportunity and that it's built into that work session and hearing that it's potentially not disruptive of the work you're doing other than if we choose to make a change collectively that would be the disruption but that would be a planned disruption.

May I make a comment.

Stephen Nielsen deputy I would suggest you change the word considered to something other than that because as I hear the word considered I'm not sure if that means discussion whether that means considered for vote.

It's not clear to me.

So I would suggest you change it to something like discussed reported on something to that end.

You are still a director in spite of your sign.

Thank you.

Right.

So process question we have a motion and a second.

And I I'm hearing a request for a friendly amendment.

A language change which I think the word reviewed would be appropriate but I want to make sure in terms of process how we weave that in.

Director Burke John circle again I would recommend that you restate your motion withdraw your first motion and then restate it.

Can I do that on a motion that's seconded.

Until it's been.

Second.

Go ahead.

OK.

I'll try to do this again.

So I move that or the yeah the.

I lost it.

That the.

It's gone.

It's just gone.

Did anybody write that down?

I'm going to have to go back to the video.

OK.

OK.

That I move that the.

That the.

the content of Amendment A or sorry Appendix A attachment A attachment A.

It's attachment A.

The content of attachment A shall be reviewed at the June 28th board meeting including consideration no there's that word with respect to enrollment and capacity fig updated enrollment and capacity numbers.

Did that work.

Is there a second.

Does it need the next part of the sentence about it's in different destinations.

Oh.

I think just the content of attachment A.

You just want to have a point of view.

It's just a placeholder.

Okay.

Second.

Okay if there are no more questions or comments about this amendment we can vote on this bar as amended.

You have to vote on the amendment first.

Okay.

Can I ask one clarifying question here again.

I'm going to go back to this nothing about right now Director Burke's amendment but North Beach Elementary School to move that one portable $100,000 how much is it to tear it down and just buy a new portable to put on the site that we need?

That would be well in excess of $100,000 probably in the neighborhood of $150,000 Director Pinkham.

All right no more questions or comments about this amendment.

Let us have a roll call on this amendment.

Director Blanford aye.

Director Burke aye.

Director Geary aye.

Director Harris aye.

Director Patu aye.

Director Pinkham aye.

Director Peters aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

Thank you.

This amendment has passed unanimously.

My apologies.

Now vote on the motion.

We now need a roll call on the motion as amended.

Please.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Geary aye.

Director Patu aye.

Director Peters aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

All right.

Thank you everybody.

So that concludes the action portion of the evening.

We now move on to our intro items.

Rather than taking a break I invite directors to do rolling breaks so we always maintain a quorum up here if need be.

So first item is the approval of the board's governance priorities and superintendent's evaluation tools 2017-18 the instrument and smart goals accompanying rubrics.

This came to the executive committee on June 1st where it was advanced for approval.

And I'd like to welcome Erin Bennett to the podium.

So Erin Bennett executive director of government relations and strategic initiatives.

Good evening.

So as was just mentioned we're going to be talking about the 1718 evaluation tools and board governance priorities.

The 1718 smart goals and rubrics were discussed at board work sessions on March 22nd and April 18th.

The documents have been edited since then based on that feedback.

The proposed priorities and SMART goals are aligned to the strategic plan and include the following goals.

Multi-tiered system of support or MTSS eliminating the opportunity gap or EOG budget and then engagement slash collaboration.

The four goals build on the work of the 1617 goals.

The SMART goals represent two thirds of the superintendent's evaluation.

The other one third is regarding professional practice and will be brought forward in a separate motion at a later board meeting.

The staff leads for each of the proposed goals are here and available to answer any of your questions.

Are there any questions or comments about this item?

Dr. Nyland.

It's late.

What is it?

I can't get it.

Four years four goals student achievement.

This is three goals four years in a row focused on student achievement and our community engagement.

So thank you.

I appreciate the consistency.

It helps us do good work.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions or comments?

No.

Okay.

Let's move on to item two.

Approval of the third year renewal of contract B01538 with Goodyman Distributing Incorporated for bread products for 2017-18.

The chair of ops could tell us You could tell us that it came to them on May 18th where it was advanced for approval.

Welcome Associate Superintendent McAvoy.

Peggy McAvoy assistant superintendent operations.

Thank you.

Actually the next three items are all part of our annual renewals for contracts.

We are in the third year of each of these contracts.

The first one is goody ma'am.

This is what provides bread for our students to the contract amount is two hundred and fifty thousand dollars one hundred and eighty one.

And there has been no increases in the dollar amounts for next year because the Nutrition Services has been able to manage the budget and we have been satisfied with the contract completion by the provider.

Dr. Geary.

this is something that both times that it's come up we've had the discussion that this is so the board realized that this is a distribution company out of Portland not a local vendor.

We accepted that bid because they came in very minimally below that which France could offer us.

There have been problems with that over the years but because it's the three year contract we have renewed it and they have they have fixed those problems.

But what I recall you saying Peggy is that we would prefer to be working with our local vendor and somebody who's providing fresh made.

product.

Yes.

Yeah.

So my question for you if you require to have this lower accept the lower bid.

What do we need to have happen in terms of the rules around the bidding process.

What do we need to do now so that when this comes up again you're not put in the same position.

to accept a low bidder that doesn't actually comport with some other principles in terms of you know using local bakers and and avoiding transportation crosses you know costs for so long.

I can't even speak.

I'm so tired.

OK.

So what do we need to make sure is happening now so that when this comes up for you the process has made it possible for you to look at something different.

Thank you for that.

We have been working with our contracting department and one of the things that we have identified is some language that we can put in our future RFPs which include locally produced products and just by adding that within the RFP process we will be able to make sure that we are getting local providers as opposed to redistributors that are outside of our area.

What is the source of our requiring to accept the low bid?

That's a state requirement.

And so we can but there is this flexibility built into that state requirement that we think we can.

Yes so when we go out for proposals what we can do is be very specific about what we want within those proposals and certainly having local produce not only reduces the carbon footprint but it also gives us more ability to have fresher products and more nimbleness when we need to alter our deliveries.

So there isn't a board policy or a rule within the district that also echoes that that we need to look at.

No and that's part of the research that we were doing with contracts to make sure that we didn't have to go out and find some new language or ask the board for some language.

They believe that we can do that within our current RFP process.

Okay, Director Blanford.

But following up on that, we wouldn't be susceptible to a challenge from what had been the low bidder before saying that the conditions that prevent them from being able to bid in the future are not material to the actual delivery of the item.

I could imagine someone saying, this is unfair.

We've bid in the past, we've received the bid, and now there's a clause in the RFP that doesn't allow us to even compete anymore.

and so that's one of the things that we had brought to the contracting department because that was our concern also how can we really do this and because of the number of issues that we've had because we've not had the nimbleness in delivery of our products some of the products actually were right on the edge of being expired and so because of that they feel like that we can put this requirement into the RFP.

Okay so I want to move on to the next two items since they're all related and that is the approval of the third year renewal of contract B01539 with duck delivery for fresh produce for the 2017-18 school year and item 4 approval of the third year renewal contract B01540 with dairy fresh farms for fluid milk products miscellaneous dairy products and juice products for 2017-18.

I hope the chair of operations committee can tell us about those.

This item and the next 30 items are all heard by the operations committee on the 18th of May and move forward for approval.

Thank you.

And these contracts are groups that we have used for a number of contract renewals.

So we've been very satisfied with them.

They are local.

The duck delivery is for an amount of $900,000 for fresh produce and the dairy fresh farms is for milk and juice for a little over $1 million.

Any questions or comments about these items?

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

The next three items.

These are all BECCS related and BTA related.

Let's see.

Number five.

BECCS for resolution 2016-17-18 board acceptance of the building commissioning report for the Hazel Wolf K-8 and Pinehurst replacement project.

Could the chair of ops please address this one and the following two.

What's that?

You said all three.

Well some of these were ones for consideration so.

You'll get to that.

Okay.

All right.

So these ones were both advanced for approval.

So Richard Best, again, director of capital projects and planning.

Your acceptance of the building commissioning is required for OSPI form D-11 and building commissioning is a point to point check of the mechanical system and how it is being operated by the computer to make sure and I'll give you a very simple example that if the damper is to be if the computer requires the outside air damper to be open 35 percent someone has visibly checked that the computer has called for that damper to be open 35 percent and that damper is indeed open 35 percent.

and so we hired a commissioning agent EEI to perform this work for us.

Mike McBee one of our mechanical electrical coordinators works closely with them to confirm that indeed these systems are functioning in the manner in which they were intended and you have their report and a copy of the executive summary.

in your board action report.

Any questions or comments about this item?

Director Pinkham.

Just a general comment and how has Hazel Wolf Kate been doing with its you know the certification that it was awarded for being a nice green lead certified or whatever building.

Have we seen return on the costs for for the school?

It usually takes Director Pink of one year to get all of these building systems dialed in.

They generally have to go through a summer performance period and then also winter performance period to get them totally dialed in.

This will be one of our most energy efficient schools and I imagine you'll see that next year.

this effort has just completed.

I know that we learned some things in the middle of winter that we needed to adjust in the sequence of operations for that school.

I look forward to seeing how those numbers show.

And believe me I'm interested too and I track that information so.

Let's move on to the next item six specs for capacity flexibility approval of a budget transfer for the Maple Elementary School cross laminated timber project.

So state of Washington is implementing a cross laminated timber project at Maple Elementary School.

It is approximately approximately a million dollars in value to Seattle Public Schools that we're not having to pay for.

They're also doing this for other schools across the state of Washington for other school districts across the state of Washington.

with Seattle Public Schools they are exceeding their appropriation for our school districts so they have asked that we fund some of the improvements that we are requesting.

A couple of examples.

We ask that this addition be built close to the school so it could interact with the other schools that met placing it on a playground.

We wanted the playground the building principal wanted the playground reconstructed.

And so that's one of the items that we are funding with this budget request.

Another item is this school is in the SeaTac White Path.

So we're asking that the windows be enhanced to reduce sound noise at Maple Elementary School.

and then there is some costs for building permits that exceed costs for building permits and other municipalities throughout the state of Washington.

And so they've given us a small list.

In addition we wanted to draw your attention and it was never the state's attention to furnish this these four classrooms that they're providing for us to provide technology for these four classrooms that they're providing for us.

and curriculum.

So we've included that in our budget request and this would come from BEX IV capacity flexibility dollars.

We did reach out to OSPI to see if we could use the K-3 class size reduction grant and at this moment in time they have told us that we cannot use those dollars for this purpose.

Dr. Herndon is continuing to have those conversations.

He's hoping to bring that to resolution by the time this comes to action for you before you but at this moment in time we've been told no. that we cannot use K-3 class size reduction dollars.

The ironic thing is the state of Washington is looking at this to see if it can resolve K-3 classroom if it can build K-3 classrooms in a cost effective manner.

So it's an irony.

Director Burke.

Could you speak to the impetus for this project recognize that Maple is space constrained but do we launch this because we had a grant opportunity and now we have to backfill or was this a planned project already that the grant was able to build on.

I'm trying to figure out what.

We were initially hoping Director Burke to receive a 10 classroom CLT addition and look at constructing that at West Woodlands Elementary School.

The state of Washington revised their plan said no we want to award a smaller classroom addition and we want to do it throughout the state so school districts can come and look at these additions that are being built throughout the state of Washington.

So Mount Vernon, Squim and Seattle have been awarded the CLT grants on the west side.

There's two school districts on the east side of the Cascades that have also been awarded.

And so when it was just a four classroom addition Maple Elementary School made sense.

and we are experiencing growth there and and this has actually solved the capacity issues for us at Maple Elementary School.

Thank you.

It could be perceived as an underfunded mandate but it's really if I'm interpreting correctly it's really just leveraging dollars that we're getting the vast majority of a project that we needed paid for.

Correct.

And we're covering what's left.

The legislature appropriated a fixed amount of money and state of Washington slightly exceeded that with our project because of some of the unique aspects of it.

Thank you.

Can you help with me I guess getting the clarification right around when we can include curriculum on such projects like this.

I see a curriculum in one of the budget items for $40,000 on this.

Correct.

We're providing the curriculum for the third grade classrooms that we are going to be placing in here Director Pinkham.

These are actually addressing capacity.

We're creating new classrooms.

They're not existing classrooms and we're purchasing the curriculum at a capital fund to take some burden off the general fund and we're allowed to do that by the state of Washington.

Thank you.

So let's move on to our final item.

BEX IV and BTA IV Lincoln High School modernization budget increase for exterior improvements including modification to Bassetti architects contract P1436 and adjustments to LIIDIG construction contract P5084.

Back to the chair of ops.

This item was heard on the 18th of May and was moved forward for consideration.

So we are coming before the board and asking for a budget increase to replace the existing windows on the western buildings at Lincoln High School and then also to implement what is known as tuck pointing but it is to repair the mortar joints on the brick on the west buildings at Lincoln High School.

This was a item that we had identified when we put BTA 4 the initial request before the prior board on BTA 4. We were asked to reduce that amount significantly.

It was an item that we removed from the list and as our architects and our contractors have delved deeper into this building we think that was a bad decision.

It would be most timely to do this in an unoccupied building.

These windows are in very poor condition.

If you haven't been to Lincoln High School to look at the existing conditions of these windows I would encourage you to do that between now and when you would take action on this and in addition the masonry is also in very poor condition and I would draw your attention to the northwest most building there on the masonry and also it's a great example of the windows as well.

so we would fund this utilizing BTA 3 program contingency dollars.

Open it up to questions.

I'm going to have to ask you to keep it brief because we're running out of tape again.

I only have one question which is if we had no contingency what would you do?

Where would you find the money?

How would you scale this back to fit within the budget that we had if we had no contingency?

And that could be a future conversation if it's something that needs more thought.

Yeah I would like to give that a little that's a good question Director Burke and I would like to give that some thought and I will respond to that Friday moment of the board.

Because I recognize that means that we would give up things.

Yes.

And we would have to give up things but that's that's a lot of money.

Yep.

I recognize it's a lot of money.

I will say that timing I think is also important and the timing to do it is really with that building unoccupied.

Okay, thanks.

All right.

If there are no further questions or comments, I call this meeting adjourned at 1021 p.m.

Thank you, everybody.

Oh, sorry.

Sorry.

Take that back.

I unadjourn it.

We are actually going to recess.

What is it?

Recess to executive session and we will return Here we go.

The executive session will begin at the conclusion of the room.

It will last approximately 30 minutes and we will reconvene at the conclusion to adjourn the meeting.

No further action will be taken as a result of the executive session.

So we are expected to be back 30 minutes to just officially adjourn.

Oh, yeah.