School Board Meeting May 3rd, 2017 Pt. 2

Okay, let's see.

Director Harris, do you want to begin with item number one?

This is BTA 3 and BTA 4 award contract K 5 0 7 4 bid number B 1 1 6 3 1. Wait a second.

I think you're down to intro.

Oh Lord.

We're going to start with action.

Yeah.

My apologies.

I guess I read it in right.

Amending policy 1240. This went to executive committee on April 6th where it was advanced for approval.

I move that the school board amend policy board policy number one two four zero committees as attached to the board action report.

I second the motion.

Are there any questions or comments about this item.

Noel Treet, General Counsel, just to let you know there haven't been any changes to this bar since introduction.

Director Harris.

We heard in public testimony that somehow this gives the superintendent veto authority and usurps the board's authority.

Could you speak to that please.

Yeah certainly I heard that comment and I understand the concern.

I don't agree with it.

I think this actually adds another tool to manage agendas.

The change would allow if you want to postpone an item or add an urgent item the board president and the superintendent could agree to do that.

So it just gives you more flexibility to manage the agenda.

It doesn't undermine the authority that the board currently has and would still have even if you adopt this proposal for either one the exec committee to come together and change agendas and which wouldn't require consent of the superintendent or for the board as a whole to come into the meeting and amend the agenda which also wouldn't require the consent of the superintendent.

So I don't see it as undermining any current authority of the board.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions or comments about this item?

Okay check 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.

Item number two is amending policy 3121 attendance.

May we please hear from the chair of the Curriculum and Instruction Committee.

Did you want to hear the motion first?

Okay.

I move that the school board amend board policy number 3121 attendance as attached to the board action report.

Now I'll ask for it to hear from the chair of the C&I committee.

This did come before C&I for on March 13th and was moved forward with a recommendation for approval.

There's nothing here that indicates anything has changed since introduction.

Is that a correct?

Pat Sander executive director coordinated school health.

Nothing has changed from the bar.

And I did note that Brad and I noted that Chris Jackins Ask about the African-American Advisory Committee and we have been part of a subcommittee that's been working the whole year and the recommendations will be coming out next month.

So it's the work of that that we were getting feedback as we have processed through that this year.

Thank you.

Are there any questions or comments about this item?

Seeing none Ms. Shek the roll call please.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

Item number three is approval of 2016-2019 collective bargaining agreement between the Seattle School District number one and Seattle King County Building and Construction Trades Council effective September 1 2016. May I have a motion.

I move that the school board approve the attached 2016 19 collective bargaining agreement negotiated between representatives of the district in the Seattle King County building and constructions trades council.

I authorize we authorize the superintendent to execute the collective bargaining agreement in the form attached to the board action report.

And to take any actions necessary to implement the rates of pay and provisions as specified in the agreement with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent.

Immediate action on this item is in the best interest of the district.

Second the motion.

May we please hear from the chair of the operations committee on this item.

This item was heard by the operations committee on April the 20th and was moved forward for approval with a special request for intro and action at this meeting.

Good evening I'm Stan Diamis the Executive Director of Labor and Employee Relations.

This particular board action as proposed would approve a collective bargaining agreement with the Building and Construction Trades Council with effectiveness going back to September 1 of 2016. The reason for the Lapse of time is the time that was involved in negotiations with the Trades Council part of which was then involved in a vote by the membership of the Trades Council on an agreement.

The vote did not pass and we had to reengage in collective bargaining.

The result of that collective bargaining was an agreement which is the agreement that's being presented this evening.

The changes from the current state are summarized briefly at some cleanup of contractual provisions to improve the clarity of the contract related to operations.

And pay increases as specified 3 percent or the state funded pass through whichever is greater for the three years of the contract and a 1 percent increase for electricians in the first year of the contract.

And an additional half a percent for the second year.

In addition four persons premium is increased by one dollar per hour.

The costs are reflected in the bar and I'm available if there are any questions.

Any questions or comments on this item.

Director Burke.

I want to.

I want to thank you for this work and just put one request in.

This contract includes an item in there about an apprenticeship program and it looks like there's going to be a committee to assess feasibility of that.

And I was just wondering if you could put somewhere into your schedule to provide the board a report on how that work is progressing because I think apprenticeships has been one of the topics of great interest for us.

Certainly glad to do it.

There's no further questions or comments.

Ms. Shek the roll call please.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

Thank you.

On to item 4. BTA 3 and BTA 4 award contract K5074 bid number B11631 to turf field USA incorporated for the synthetic turf replacement track resurfacing and field lighting infrastructure at Roosevelt High School project.

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute contract K 5 0 7 4 bid number B 1 1 6 3 1 with FieldTurf USA for the synthetic turf replacement point of personal privilege not crumb rubber.

Track resurfacing and field lighting infrastructure at Roosevelt High School project in the amount of 904 166 dollars including alternate number three plus Washington state sales tax in the form of the draft contract attached to the board action report with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary action to implement the contract.

I second the motion.

Thank you.

May we please hear from the chair of the Operations Committee on the committee's recommendation.

This item was moved forward on March the 16th for consideration.

Richard Best director of capital projects and planning for Seattle Public Schools.

The one edit that has been made in this bar is when you look at the paragraph 13 attachments the word draft has now been struck out of the contract and you have a final contract in your document and that is the same edits that were made for items five and six as well on the action for agenda items.

Are there any questions or comments about this item?

Director Burke.

Super quickly I believe if my murky memory serves correctly this particular project was before us before in the form of crumb rubber and I just wanted to put a shout out to my colleagues who at the time raised a little bit of a concern.

I won't call it a stink or a ruckus I'll call it a concern that changed some of the ways of thinking for me personally and it looks like it's changed some of the ways we're doing business here in the district so.

If anybody asks you know are we making an impact as a board and you think about long term what these fields are going to be you know this is something where our kids are going to be playing for the next umpteen years.

So I just wanted to put that out and publicly thank my colleagues for their attention to this matter last time this came through.

Thank you.

Dr. Harris.

And thank you to the staff that Willingly and dug deep and came up with those alternatives.

Really appreciate the collegial nature in which this happened.

Thank you.

I second that.

All right.

Are there any.

Oh George Pinkham.

Well just again a public comment about has the district issued an environmental threshold determination for this project and given that it may be required taking any substantial action is that needed for this or.

This was a BTA 4 project.

This is a repair.

It's not required for repairs of or replacements of existing fields that already have synthetic turf.

Director Pinkham.

This would be considered maintenance and that's not required under SEPA.

Okay.

And the addition of the lights since that's not.

Is that considered part of the.

The lights we are only providing the infrastructure.

We are not providing the lights under this project.

We'll be in a position in which we can add lights at a future date.

If we successfully go through SEPA we are in the process of going through SEPA at this time.

We just did not want to have to come back and cut up a new field.

A year later when we've completed our SEPA and so we're providing the infrastructure at this time to position us to be able to install field lights at a future date if we get SEPA approval and permit approval.

But it's not a part of this project the installation of the lights.

So that's where the field lighting infrastructure is.

Correct.

That's why it says field lighting infrastructure.

Seeing no further questions or comments, check the roll call please.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

Item 5 BTA 4 award contract K 5077 bid number B 11642 to Western Ventures construction for the Garfield High School roof replacement project.

I move the school board authorize the superintendent to execute construction contract K 5007 bid number B 11642 to Western Ventures construction for the Garfield High School roof replacement project in the amount of one million thirty thousand dollars Including alternate one plus Washington state sales tax in the form of the draft agreement attached to the board action report with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary action to implement the contract.

I second the motion.

May we please hear from the chair of the operations committee on this and the following two items that all came to the committee.

The following two items.

This one came on the 16th and was moved forward for consideration.

The next one also on the 16th for approval and the one following that on April the 20th also for approval.

Thank you.

Has anything changed between intro and action for this?

Yes.

As noted previously just the word draft has been removed in paragraph 13.

Are there any questions or comments about this item?

Seeing none 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.

Item 6. BTA IV award contract K 5088 to Wayne's Roofing Incorporated for the Ballard and West Seattle high schools roof replacement project.

I move that school board authorize the superintendent to execute construction contract K 5088 Eight eight with Wayne's Roofing Inc. utilizing the E and I cooperative services purchasing agreement for Ballard and West Seattle High School's roof replacement projects in the amount of nine million three hundred sixty one three hundred fifty eight Plus Washington state sales tax in the form of the draft agreement attached to the board action report with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary action to implement the contract.

I second the motion.

Mr. Best can you please speak to the changes since intro is it the same the word draft.

Correct.

It's paragraph 13. The word draft is now crossed out.

Director Harris.

The E&I cooperative agreement is that the state purchasing cooperative that we save a ton of money using.

The state purchasing cooperative is King County Directors Association that's the KCDA.

E&I is educational and institutional purchasing cooperative.

It's another purchasing cooperative very similar to KCDA.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions or comments on this item.

Seeing none let's check the roll call please.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

Now onto an item seven approval of amendment number two with Saxton Bradley for furniture procurement contract number P five zero seven nine.

Intro action.

I move that school board authorize a superintendent to execute contract amendment number two with Saxton Bradley in the revised contract amount not to exceed one million one million one $1,304 plus Washington state sales tax in the form of the draft amendment attached to the school action 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 amendment immediate action on this item is in the best interest of the district.

I second the motion.

Any questions or comments on this item?

Are these the furniture for the new schools?

Correct.

This is furniture for the seven new schools.

We are not increasing the budget for any of the new schools.

We are just purchasing more furniture than was anticipated from the Saxton Bradley contract and you'll see reductions in the other seven contracts that you approved in January that are offsetting the increase for the Saxton Bradley contract.

Thank you.

I think it would be helpful if you enlighten us as to the reason why this is scheduled for intro and action.

Yes we are requesting both intro and action tonight because May 15th we literally have 16 weeks in which school open in the fall of 2017 for the 2017-18 school year.

We've been reaching out to our furniture vendors.

We know that we have long lead items 12 to 16 weeks in length that we've identified six.

So we are trying to well we're requesting tonight your approval of this amendment and then that will allow our purchasing department some time to get purchase orders issued for this furniture so we can get it here in time for start of school.

Any other questions or comments on this item?

Seeing none.

Ms. Jack the roll call please.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

Thank you.

We now move to the introduction portion of the agenda.

Item number one is a motion to amend board policy number 3141 non-resident students.

May we please hear from the chair of the operations committee for the committee's recommendation.

This item was moved forward from the operations committee which heard it on April the 20th and moved forward for consideration.

Can someone speak to why it was moved for consideration rather than approval.

I speak to that.

Ronald Boy senior assistant general counsel.

The committee had some good suggestions for further refining the wording.

So those suggestions were taken into consideration and made some additional changes.

So now reflects the committee's recommendation as in addition to what was presented to them.

All right.

Go ahead and tell us all about it.

OK.

So this is an amendment to board policy 3141 non-resident students.

The policy that guides our acceptance of students coming from neighboring districts typically to be admitted into Seattle Public Schools.

In working with this policy in the last few years, we recognized that the wording of the policy needed additional clarity as to what exactly a family and a student was applying to get into.

There is a lack of clarity whether it was admission into a particular school or the district as a whole.

So the amendments provide additional clarity to make it very clear that you are applying into the district and that we do provide the option to indicate your preferred choices as far as which school you'd like to attend.

And then when I was working on the policy to Add that additional clarity.

I also found that there were discrepancies between the law regarding non-resident admission and what the policy indicated.

For example some of the criteria was missing kind of important words that made the policy confusing.

There was also a criteria that was missing that was contained in the law.

That did not occur in the policy.

And then further there was a number of grammatical issues that were corrected and things of that nature.

So we're hoping that if this is approved that the additional clarity will Lower the amount of confusion that people have had in dealing with this policy not only with our staff but also the community that's applying into the district and whenever we have confusion it creates you know bad feelings because people just don't understand exactly what they're doing and we're hoping that by just being as transparent as possible that it will allow people to enter into the process fully informed and And have the reasonable expectations for what they can expect.

Dr. Harris.

So when you clean up a policy like that and make it conform with the law and that grammar do we send it back to WASDA so that they can share it with the rest of our fellow districts.

We don't.

Perhaps we should since it could be a more thoughtful reciprocal relationship.

No.

Yeah I agree.

Any other questions on this item.

Director Pinkham.

Well just kind of thinking about this as we're also looking at the wait lists and all this.

How would this impact wait lists.

So let's say we have a student on the wait list that didn't get into their school choice but then a non-resident student comes in and oh hey they get that spot.

No so residents always come first.

Yeah.

Just want to.

Yes.

Thank you for pointing that out.

But what if someone moves in after the waitlists have been closed?

So moves into our district after the waitlist has closed.

Or a non-resident applies after the waitlists have been dissolved.

Sorry is the word.

So the way that it works is that if a wait list has been completely taken care of, all those students have been placed, then a non-resident would apply and they would likely, if there was additional capacity, they would then be able to gain admittance or that they would then become the beginning of a new wait list, which we see sometimes.

But in theory they wouldn't be admitted to any of the schools where the wait lists have been dissolved because those schools are being defined as full by the district.

And typically what typically what we see is the non-residents are then following on the wait list behind the resident students because a lot of times the wait list don't move enough to completely allow all of the residents in.

So it just becomes a longer wait list.

And it actually would be just a denial to that school and we would give other options for schools that had capacity.

And who makes a determination about the denial of the school?

At the school level or at the district level?

District level the Admissions Center has a group that reviews all of the applications looks at the capacity and and will determine based on capacity whether a non-resident gets in and non-resident applications start on June 1st and then people are typically informed in the middle of the summer once all the the resident needs have been taken care of whether or not they get in.

Okay so a non-resident would come to the central office and apply for enrollment here and the decision about placement would be made here based on capacity.

Correct.

Would not be made at the school level.

No.

Okay.

Thank you.

Director Geary did you have a question.

Director Harris.

So we pass this resolution potentially at our next board meeting.

Does then the student assignment transition plan need to be updated as well to be in conformance.

Is it addressed in the student assignment transition plan.

Non-resident students.

And where they fall on the pecking order.

Yes, it is already addressed and that's an established procedure.

The changes to this policy aren't going to actually alter our existing processes.

It really is just making sure that we're being exceedingly clear in what the criteria for admission is into the district.

Have heard some community feedback about the I believe it is a done deal change of changing enrollment department to admissions department and suggesting that we really don't admit folks in the classical sense of the way where one competes etc. etc. and we have criteria.

And I'm wondering how did that change come about and what was the reason for same.

I actually don't know.

I don't know if anyone is taking.

Does anyone know?

If I recall correctly I believe the idea was to distinguish enrollment services from enrollment planning because there was a lot of confusion between what the two different departments do so as to bring some clarity about admissions to the school is dealing previously what enrollment services was doing.

And enrollment planning was really about future projections and capacity within the building.

That's my understanding.

But that was that transition I think happened a year or two ago as I recall.

Any other questions?

Comments on this item?

Okay.

Thank you.

Next item.

Amending policy number 6022 economic stabilization account ESA.

May I please hear from the chair of the audit finance committee for the committee's recommendation.

On April 18 we moved it forward for consideration.

Jo Lindberghi assistant superintendent for business and finance.

This policy change is recommended for three reasons.

One to simplify the language in the policy.

Two, to allow usage of the account to assist in balancing the 2017-18 budget.

Current restrictions on the account would not allow for that.

And three, to add a requirement for a repayment plan if the account is used and the balance drops below the minimum percentage recommended of 3%.

Directors were made aware of the need to change this policy as part of the November 22nd 2016 budget work session and based on feedback from the audit and finance meeting on April 18th the initial board action report was modified to add a requirement and I quote that the repayment plan must be reviewed annually as part of the budget process until the funds are fully restored.

Just as another note this will be followed later by a resolution to approve the use and that happens in a subsequent meeting.

May I ask why this was advanced for consideration only?

Because we felt that we needed to review this as part of every year's budget process so it didn't fall off the plate.

And that amendment was in fact added.

It's a transparency issue.

So I have a question.

How does this approach compare with other districts approach to similar funds?

Thank you for asking.

So in the research section of the bar we did refer to and look at other large districts policies and the new language more closely mirrors with those other districts now have in their policy.

Any other questions or comments about this item.

Thank you.

Next item item 3 adopt policy number 6102 fundraising and fundraising and repeal policy and procedure D 140.00 and D 140.01 district fundraising may we please hear from the chair of the Audit and Finance Committee.

This item this bar was moved forward by the Audit and Finance Committee on April 18 with a recommendation for approval.

Good evening Michael Stone director of grants.

I'm bringing forward policy 6102 for adoption and to repeal as you said D 140 and procedure 140-01.

The current policy D 140 was adopted in 2003. As we know, fundraising has dramatically changed since then.

We're also bringing this into this policy forward so that it brings relevant language and into the series 6000 policy book and that it adds new language in the policy and the procedures that address common forms of fundraising today and particularly online crowdsourcing.

The procedure will be more outlining what exactly buildings will be able to do.

And we did research several other districts to look at the language they're using in their policies.

Are there any questions or comments about this item?

Director Pinkham.

So just I guess for the right clarification so any crowdfunding would be done central in the office not in the schools themselves?

No it's actually not allowed.

Not allowed.

So that's part I'll say that won't be allowed.

Do you see that as being anything that will be allowed because the University of Washington has something similar to that that's operating central to the University of Washington that people have to apply for to get approved to do crowdfunding.

We didn't really, the committee didn't look at that piece of it, that it could be something...

Yeah, I mean...

I don't know.

There's an understanding that...

It's the structure of those crowdsourcing sites that's the issue, and it's that where we have rules where money has to be deposited within our county account within a certain amount of time, holding that money at another location is not allowed under the RCWs.

So that's the issue with the size of that.

So if it didn't kind of fall into that structure where it runs in a foul of just the rules of how we have to hold on to our own money, it could be something that would work for us.

Yeah.

So maybe something to check into.

It's called UC at the University of Washington.

Yeah.

And I imagine maybe it's where they're actually able to be holding on.

So it might work.

Are there any other questions or comments on this item?

All right, thank you.

All right, the next item is, oh, I'm excited about this next one.

This is item 4 approval of contract RFP 02 02756 point of sale system.

May we please hear from the audit and finance committee.

This came before the audit and finance committee on April 18th with recommendation for approval and point of personal privilege.

I could not be more excited because in our internal audits cash handling has been a really big deal and we cannot wait.

Thank you.

And did you hear that back in dots.

Joellen Berge assistant superintendent for business and finance.

We're moving forward for consideration the point of sale contract with my school payment network in the amount of six hundred forty seven thousand dollars which covers the first three years with an option to extend annually for up to 10 years.

Implementation of this point of sale system with my school payment network will significantly improve processes for our families as will add the ability to take credit and debit payments online and or on site at schools.

It will help parents understand what fees are owed and when.

It will help schools track fine fees and ASB charges.

It will reduce the number of cash and check collections and it will reduce the amount of administrative effort currently required.

While there are no estimates on overall dollar savings by implementing this product the opportunity cost savings provided by the vendor for other districts of similar size are approximately 3000 staff hours saved in processing time for fiscal specialists.

That would conclude my remarks.

Director Harris.

One some of our audience does not understand necessarily the concept of opportunity cost if you could talk to that and two could you talk about the rollout of this the timing the schools that are going to be piloting this and how soon we can do this for all 99 or 100 schools.

So opportunity cost when I refer to that I mean that we will spend three thousand less staff hours processing cash and check payments that we are receiving from parents and we'll have three thousand hours to do other work that's stacked up on our desks.

The rollout is we had asked fiscal specialists which schools would like to volunteer.

Having users who want this is really critical to having a good implementation.

We have several high schools and middle schools that had asked to pilot it.

The thought is to bring all of the high schools online next year and then we'll move through the year and see how Quickly we can bring on the middle schools and the elementary schools but they all should be online beginning with the 18 19 school year.

The high schools have probably over 80 percent of the actual dollar value of the transactions at that level.

Thank you.

So I know this is something that we've wanted district has wanted for a long time.

So is it fair to say that moving forward with this will boldly bring us into the 20th century.

In this area that would be the case.

Thank you.

Director Burke.

One of the things that was insightful for me when I learned about this in committee is this is not just credit card transactions processing but this is like the user interface the front end for it that allows schools to configure the transactions that they need and I'm curious as far as configuring it and training does the does this work or this this bar this funding include training what type of professional development is offered for our staff.

And then to extend on that, can we just train a few of the high schoolers and have them go around and teach everybody?

I don't I don't believe that we can employ high school students.

That would be a violation of labor laws.

Interns.

Interns.

Yeah.

As far as.

Yep.

No.

As far as the configuration for training there's there will be a whole training plan that is developed with the vendor where they come out and train our staff and provide user testing.

And then they also have a.

Helpline, a tech line that is open to us to use as much as we want to.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Director Pinkham.

So with this contract being able to collect debit and credit card information that information is going to be stored with this company and are they responsible for the security of that information as well?

That's correct.

They are a certified payment processor and meet all of the federal regulation numbers or collections that type of information that's all handled through this vendor.

No more questions or comments.

Thank you.

Next item.

Item five budget development and financial management system BDMS contract awards.

May we please hear from the audit and finance committee chair.

This came to audit and finance April 18th.

For consideration the authorization to purchase a budget development and financial management system through Questica that would be the vendor.

The reason for purchasing a new system is to replace the current antiquated system that we have now and to improve our budget and staffing processes both during budget development and throughout the year.

Also to obtain better budget and financial reporting and controls over how many positions that we have authorized how many do we have staff that sort of thing.

The amount will exceed two hundred and fifty thousand dollars so it requires school board approval.

Staff is currently working with the vendor to get a contract finalized and to the board will know that exact amount before you're asked to approve it on May 17th.

Director Harris.

Is this the one that your entire department is over the moon over and why.

I think that the system that we currently work with is so far behind.

It's similar to the point of sale system where we're doing manual receipts.

It's that kind of a leap forward for us in the budget development system with on demand reporting and just the ability to have much more data at our fingertips.

And will this assist the board in understanding these complex scenarios and systems and will it also assist the public in transparency.

To some degree.

I'm not going to say that school budget or finance will ever be super simple but we will be able to have budgets for SMART goals and so we'll be able to budget using different or more factors to pull the data forward.

So we can say how much do we spend on SMART goals and we can budget by SMART goal as well as all of the other things that.

So that will provide additional transparency for both the board and for our public.

One last question.

So on Friday your department sent out the spending status on the nine million dollar underspend and thank you for that.

Does that mean that you had to Do that by hand?

Manually.

Each one of them had to go through and pull that.

Yeah.

It depends on how we have to set.

It's not an easy pull through.

It's not like we can just push a button and ask for that report to come through.

So there'll be some help in those kinds of things.

For the record this is crazy making and awesome.

Thank you.

Director Harris can you speak to why this was advanced for consideration?

Because the RFP and the contract negotiating has not yet finalized so we do not have a number to put in there.

They're working on it as she just said.

Any other questions or comments on this item?

Right.

Thank you.

So next item.

Item six.

Approval of contracts for annual power school maintenance and support and for online registration forms and support.

We hear from the chair of the operations committee for actually there's quite a few.

Are the rest.

Oh you get to do all of the rest of them.

Great.

I think they're all on the same day too.

Thanks.

Almost done the whole thing.

The Operations Committee heard these items on the 20th of April and most of them moved forward for approval.

Item 10 looks like it was moved forward for consideration.

Thank you.

Hi John Kroll CIO.

We're presenting the power school maintenance and support and online register registration system.

The powers power schools are student information system that we've used for several years now.

The support is the annual one year support.

That gives us upgrades and technical support in running the application and the online registration is a new module that we're going to be adding to PowerSchool and I'll introduce Nancy Peterson to speak on that briefly.

Nancy Peterson.

I'm the director of enterprise applications in DOTS.

Thank you.

The online registration application is one that we will use for doing for first putting enrollment forms online.

For our families to complete when they're ready to enroll their children in school.

That amount is one hundred twenty thousand seven hundred sixty dollars and fifty cents.

This enrollment form putting it online will save a lot of work for our enrollment services office.

They estimate a hundred thousand dollars the first year just in time for paying subs.

Substitutes that they hire to help input all of the forms manually every year as well as overtime for staff.

We're really excited about the product and the service.

It will streamline their processes.

It will help us get more timely and accurate information and data into the system.

We'll streamline that for all of the schools.

And so first is our enrollment form.

Second up will be the student verification form for data that the schools all send out currently every year and then we'll follow on from there.

Director Harris.

Will this help us move wait lists faster.

I don't I can't speak to wait lists and that whole process.

What I can say is that I think this will free up time huge amounts of time for our enrollment services folks to focus on more value add work rather than manually typing and doing data entry.

And so they'll have the data more quickly and it will be more accurate.

And I think they'll be able to act on it more quickly.

Director Blanford.

If I'm remembering and this is the right item when we discussed it in the audit and finance committee you talked about the benefit to staff but there's also a benefit if I'm remembering correctly to our families in that they enter information one time and then that information does not need to be re-entered every following year.

And so we'll have an increase probably in accuracy and a huge savings as a parent who has to fill out those forms.

I know that it sucks up a lot of time at the very beginning of the year having to complete those forms.

Having a more efficient way of collecting relevant information and having that follow the student I think will be a wonderful addition as well.

Correct.

That's one of the great things about this is by putting the form online it helps for continuing students for those families that their data continues with them and with the verification form once we get it online they'll be able to make updates to their data as well.

For the enrollment form I think it's a great opportunity for our families because they won't be required to come down to the central office in person to fill out paperwork on every child.

It won't they won't have to fill out all of the information for every single child that will remember it as they enter their other children.

And so I think it's a great advantage for students or for families.

Director Burke.

Thanks for this.

This is exciting in a bunch of different ways.

I've got a couple of questions.

I think building on the conversation that started here, I think about this as well as a parent and there's a student information piece, but it is one component of the dreaded first day packet.

And so I'm curious if this if this system is something that has growth potential where we can incorporate some things that might even be school specific or where schools can tailor their you know their data entry profile or whatever so that if there's aspects about it is that something that this could build towards.

It certainly has the potential and I'm glad you bring up the first day packets.

We've talked for a long time about how we really need an online enrollment form but that's a one time event for most families.

Every year we have that first day packet and certainly we would like to put as much of that online as we can.

We want to try out this this service first And to see how well it works and how well it integrates with PowerSchool before we commit to a lot more forms.

What we found though with the enrollment form and the student verification form and some other forms is that a lot of that data is repeated.

And so by combining those we believe that that will make it Less cumbersome for the vendor to help us create those forms.

I can't speak to the school specific forms at this point.

I think we'd need to see how the product works and how it evolves over time.

Thank you.

The second question is related to security and you know just the online component.

We have families that deliberately do not maintain an internet presence and so is this process going to still allow those families to have an avenue to continue to Get the data into the system.

And along the same lines, are there any types of security risks if you have a virus or some type of malware at a data entry site?

Are we firewalled so that that doesn't come into our system?

Yes so the second question the answer is yes the site is firewalled.

Our security our information security folks have talked to the vendor and interviewed them with all of their security provisions and and so I believe we're protected in that way.

The other question you asked was.

This I guess it actually it relates to families that don't have an internet presence but it also actually might relate to language because that was my last question is can we support other languages and then I'm done.

Okay so yes we certainly will accommodate parents who have no internet presence.

We've already said that for enrollment services we would still have a paper form but we will also have kiosks down here that we can help people complete their entry.

Today with the student verification form they parents are able to have the school print a copy of that and they can make the changes or they can go to the school directly.

And give them the information to enter into the system.

I think one of the nice things about an online form is it actually does give us greater access for many of our communities.

This one is going to be translated into three of our top languages.

That's Chinese Vietnamese and Spanish.

And it is also ADA accessible to the full extent of our consent decree.

And so that is a great capability that we don't have today.

Director Harris and then Director Geary.

Well you picked off about four of my questions.

Thank you.

Can we work with the community engagement team In terms of making alternative places to do this libraries etc where we don't have computers or use the computers in school etc for that so that we don't leave a part of our population out.

That's my first ask.

My second ask is maybe associate superintendent Herndon can help me with with respect to whether or not this will help move The waitlist faster that together with the new budget tool.

We've got better information and three thousand saved hours.

And if we were to move updates for instance to accept an HCC placement.

That would be like a trifecta potentially.

Question and editorial mixed in.

Okay and I believe I can address those.

For having library computers set up we have talked the enrollment services supervisor and I have talked about plans to be able to do more outreach exactly in that way.

Not only the libraries but also in the school offices.

You heard about the point of sale system and we talked with that about having kiosks available or machines available in the school offices.

We could also make those available for enrollment.

So I think we have a lot of those opportunities.

We definitely are working with the community engagement team for around communications and logistics in general.

Your second question was about wait lists and I can't speak any more to that, but the highly capable students that you were talking about.

I know that we have some work going on separately with the advanced learning department where another portion of our team Has been working with them to improve their processes and put more automation into it.

And so as an example they're moving up I believe their their application process to the spring rather than next fall.

So I think there are a lot of things coming together that are going to make things really much more smooth and more timely for our families.

As it relates to the wait list again I mean I think there are a few tools that we're using to hopefully make us a little bit more efficient and get us the information we need for decision making to be a little bit more dynamic and automated so that certainly helps.

There are multiple processes as you've heard and departments that are involved when we're looking at this so we just want to make sure that we have as much information and it's reliable as possible so we're making some good decisions but all of this certainly helps.

I fully support all of that.

Director Geary has a question or comment.

I do and just because We bring on more and more technology we're constantly asked to approve more contracts but as I recall when you presented this to us you also talked about a maintenance I believe a maintenance contract that we had tried and then had walked back because you had found it wasn't as effective or useful or needed and so I think that's a nice piece of information to share with the board as well if you would.

Okay yes I believe what you're talking about and what I alluded to was last June when we came before this board and had you and you did graciously approve an extra fifty thousand dollars for extra support for us with Power School and we wanted to use that extra support for our upgrade in the summer.

We did use that support.

It was useful.

And over the course of the summer we realized this was not the kind of support that we needed extra from Power School for the full year.

Because there was a 90 day cancellation clause we did exercise that and were refunded nearly $40,000 of that $50,000.

So we paid just for the summer support and We're credited for that other amount and decided that going forward that isn't something that our particular school district benefits from.

So yes, that is one of those things that worked out well.

there's no further questions or comments we'll move on okay next item is the item number seven is that right yes purchase of student and staff computers for new becks four schools and bta three projects opening summer 2017.

Yes Richard Best Director of Capital Projects and Planning.

So we are going to be introducing tonight the bar to purchase staff and student computers for the seven schools that will be opening.

Plus there's one additional school McGilbrough Elementary School as part of BTA.

Our Department of Technology Services has been working with the building principals to identify the computer needs for the various schools.

They've identified they'll be providing one staff computer, a presentation computer, and then 16 computers for student use.

We anticipate the student computers will be mobile devices.

The presentation station will be a fixed device.

And then the teacher or the staff computer is still being analyzed as to what computer that will be.

So we don't have a definitive Recommendation for the staff computer.

We are asking for approval to up to 1.6 million dollars plus Washington state sales tax.

This is budgeted in the capital projects budget for each of these projects and so open it up to questions.

Director Burke.

This might be in here and I might have missed it somewhere.

What is the ratio that we're putting these computers into schools at.

It looks like they are going to be on mobile stations as compared to.

Correct.

Is that.

Are they.

In the classroom.

Classroom sets.

It's roughly one device per two students.

OK.

Thank you.

Is that different than our standard ratio elsewhere?

That's greater.

We're moving to more mobile devices at less cost than the primary fixed computer stations that we provided at last year's schools that we opened.

And that's really been in consultation with Department of Technology Services Office of Teaching and Learning and Curriculum and Instruction.

Okay I think this comes back to the discussion that we've started but I don't feel like we have established as a board and as a community of what is our what is our theory of action what is our educational vision around how technology integrates with instruction and I think that what I'm hearing in your reply is what in my industry would be called scope creep.

And so we have an opportunity where if we maintain the existing ratio of three to one nominally that's funding that could be allocated to other things.

We're making a choice a conscious choice to change that ratio and put that funding towards hardware.

And I truly believe as a board director that that is something that we have to have a conversation about and we have to have consensus around And have a clear understanding of how that supports our educational goals.

So I just make one comment for your awareness and that is that the budgets have not increased for any of these projects.

What we're providing is more devices by going to the mobile less expensive device.

We had allocated these budgets several years ago now and we've maintained the budget amount.

We're just able to procure more devices as technology continues to decrease in price.

Right and I appreciate that clarification.

What hasn't been had is the discussion of do we want more mobile devices or do we want to look at 3D printers or do we want to look at some type of instrumentation for our science kits or something that could also be technology based.

And I think that's just the topic that I'd like to have figure out how to have that conversation around.

Yeah sure.

Director Blanford.

So I can address this a little bit.

So like was mentioned the budget didn't change and we did talk to curriculum and instruction and it's our plan is to spend the same amount of money but go go towards laptops and that's what the teachers want and that's what the curriculum and instruction office wants.

So.

But what I heard in Director Burke's comments is a higher level conversation and we started to have that conversation with your predecessor I believe.

It was a work session.

We were down on the floor And there wasn't consensus around the bigger vision of technology and its role in our classrooms.

It was, if I remember correctly, it was a rich conversation, but it was constrained by time and it didn't get us to an outcome that was actionable, I think, by the staff.

And so there may be some opportunity for us to revisit that conversation.

There are those in the community.

Some of them come to my community meetings and speak really passionately about wanting to know what is the vision for technology in our classrooms.

And these are pretty sophisticated folks that know technology pretty well.

And so I think there's an opportunity there and I think there's opportunity potentially to have some folks in the community being as we live in a city that's so rich with technology for our conversation to be informed by kind of the state of the art around educational technology out in the field.

So I hope that that conversation happens sometime in the not too distant future.

Because I think it's one that is we've started but we haven't concluded yet.

Thanks for that information.

I'll act on that.

Dr. Harris.

Thank you for your gentleman's comments.

This is a conversation you and I have had and I have difficulty with putting the cart before the horse.

Your predecessor was in fact extraordinarily enamored With application based education but that's a bigger philosophical question.

And this board is charged by statute with reviewing curriculum and it's certainly a hot topic for us since we've been talking about curriculum all year long and the fact that we don't have a budget for it.

Moreover we have.

A number of technology based programs in our schools right now that have never been vetted by a curriculum committee.

Edgenuity is rather appalling with respect to colonialism and racism.

And I've got problems with that because we are putting a great many very high needs folks on those applications.

So Mission creep is as nice a word I can say it.

But this is an abrogation of our duties if we don't address these issues.

And I also appreciate that you've got significant experience from Oakland and apparently significant experience that has been misquoted.

So you bring a lot to the table.

But we can't keep kicking this can down the road.

That's unacceptable.

And It needs to be scheduled.

It needs to be rich.

And we need to have enough time.

And I absolutely agree with Director Blanford.

In this city not to have experts at the table is crazy making.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions or comments about this item?

Thank you.

I think we'll be discussing this at some later date.

All right.

But I do appreciate the comments from everyone on this important topic.

All right.

Item number eight.

Acceptance of gift from a Drona playground improvement project.

Good evening.

I'm Gretchen Dedecker with the self-help projects program with the in the facilities department.

And as a reminder a self-help project is any project to improve buildings or grounds that is initiated and carried out by an individual or group other than our facilities capital or technology departments.

This evening we have two self-help projects to present and the first one is Madrona.

Madrona playground improvement project was initiated by the PTA and a self-help project upon completion and acceptance by the district is considered a gift to the district.

And when the value of a self-help project is anticipated to be over $250,000 the school board must formally decide if it's in the district's best interest to accept the gift.

Tonight I have with me Sharon Seferich and also Adam Rakunis from the PTA.

So the Madrona PTA received grants and other funds and is planning to continue fundraising and apply for additional grants for their playground project.

The size of a self help project is typically a function of the amount of funds that are raised by the PTA.

So the total for the total value of Madrona's project is approaching $250,000 based on what they've raised so far and what they're hoping to raise with some upcoming grants.

Because we aren't quite to $250,000 we're taking it to the board anyway right now because we're anticipating that.

And if we waited until all the funds were raised it would delay the project probably another year just because of the timing of construction scheduling.

The Madrona playground is quite small and the phase one project would replace their existing play structure which was installed when the building was remodeled in 2002. And the project will also maximize every square inch of the very small playground.

And also a pedestrian gate will be added to allow community use of the playground outside of school hours.

Right now there's a vehicle gate that's open to let kids in and out in the morning and out after school but it has to be closed and locked so that cars don't drive onto the playground.

So it's pretty empty and desolate outside of school hours and our hope is to activate that space.

So it's to take advantage of an important community resource.

Again this is the board action report is seeking board acceptance of the playground gift and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions or comments.

Director Geary.

I just want to thank the parents for their dedication to our schools and all the hard work and passion they brought to this project because it's something that many many children for many years will enjoy.

So thank you so much.

Director Blanford.

Director Geary stole my thunder.

In the in the committee when we were vetting this item we had the opportunity to share with the parents our appreciation for the hard work knowing full well that fundraising is not an easy thing to do but they've done remarkable work and so I agree with Director Geary and want to share my appreciation for all the hard work.

Director Burke.

Everybody always takes the thank yous but I'm going to add one more.

Gold star for hanging out this long at a board meeting.

Put it right there.

So I have a slightly different comment to make and I thank the parents for the efforts you do.

But my question to the district is why do our PTAs have to do this?

I mean when I read the background information on this it says at nearly 20 years old the current play structure is approaching the end of its useful life.

Several broken components of the play structure have been replaced with pieces with pieces salvaged from other schools demolished play structures.

In recent years the PTSA has sponsored volunteer efforts to paint the game lines.

These have gradually faded segments of the playground are off limits due to unsuitability for play.

Why is it that we have to rely upon our families to maintain our playgrounds and keep them safe?

Why is it we do not have funds to do this?

I'll make one comment and then I'm going to let Dr. Herndon speak to the rest.

Just just a little background on self-help projects.

Self-help projects have been part of the district since the mid 1970s and they were initially because of the need to replace playground equipment and also painting.

That's kind of how it started.

But it has broadened to include anything that is a facility improvement to buildings or grounds.

So it's grounds cleanups, it's art murals, it's reader board signs and it frankly adds about two to three million dollars of value to the school district each year.

We never have enough funding for everything that is desired.

I will let Dr. Herndon add to that.

So I'll respond to that director Peters and that I'll just remind the board that we have approximately five hundred million dollars in a backlog of maintenance and repair items that the Ming analysis report has identified for us.

What that looks like from a system standpoint is roof replacement projects Heating and cooling projects.

Electrical service upgrades.

This is not to say that playgrounds are not important but I can tell you when you look at the educational program of the district and you have a roof leak in a classroom you are interrupting that teachable moment.

When you have a classroom that is too hot or too cold you are interrupting that teachable moment.

And so we're prioritizing Trying to get the roofs replaced mechanical systems replaced and electrical systems upgraded safety systems in place seismic improvements implemented and we really work closely with our PTA partners to have them help fund the playground infrastructure.

I am by no means saying that's the right approach but I'm also just highlighting again for the board And for the community that we have a huge backlog of maintenance requests that we are trying to address.

So just as a reminder.

So it sounds like we're still talking about priorities and triage and what we do with our resources.

Dr. Harris did you have a question?

Yeah.

Almost feels like hospice instead of triage.

I guess one of the things that I would like daylighted or at least acknowledged and recognized is when we're talking about PTA we're not necessarily talking about an equitable system.

And that we're talking about schools that can raise up to a million dollars a year and other schools that A don't have a PTA or a PTO and are lucky if they can raise five hundred dollars.

And how do we how do we get there from here because where here is is not right and is not equitable.

Are you seeking an answer for that or making a statement?

Acknowledgement.

I've often said that and I recognize a lot of the PTAs.

There's some PTAs that don't have any money and I certainly see that.

Exactly right.

And there's and I have worked with several schools in that situation.

One of the things I try to do we there's about 400 to 450 self-help projects initiated each year.

Not all of them come to fruition.

Some are one day projects some are six year projects.

We have organizations that come to us.

City serve with Union Gaspo Mission.

Corporate Deloitte is coming next month to one of our schools.

I try to match those projects with schools in need that have less resources.

So I try to kind of.

Share the share the wealth around.

Also Department of Neighborhoods in King County has been really really generous to us and they have been helpful.

I have learned their grant system.

So just helping schools and encouraging them to apply for grants that may be available.

Do you also work with the Ed directors?

Always.

No.

I don't know in which way you mean I mean.

Well I mean in terms of making them aware of opportunities out there for grants and that sort of thing so that so that they have that in their toolbox to assist.

Yes.

We usually send the grant information directly to the schools and to the PTAs.

But I think that's a good idea to to share it with the Ed directors.

Right.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments on this item?

Thank you.

I think the next item is similar.

Item nine acceptance of gift of Highland Park Elementary Playground Improvement Project.

Right.

So again I'm going to skip the introduction that I made before.

Tonight David Johnson was going to join us but he was unable to get coverage for his child who he thought wouldn't want to sit through two hours or longer.

So but he's here in spirit for Highland Park the playground committee of the PTA has received grants and other funds and applied for additional grants which we hope to hear from any day now to build a playground improvement project whose value is approaching two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

And because we think their funding may exceed $250,000 we're coming to the board now in order to not delay the project later.

Currently the Highland Park playground the main playground has no play structure at all.

When the building was renovated around 2000 there was recognition that the park next door had a play structure.

But it is a different there's topography difference.

And so in order to take advantage of that it really requires extra supervision and the parks renovations this year are going to put the play structure even farther away.

So a priority for the Highland Park PTA was to add a play structure.

What we're looking at is taking advantage of the net climber that's at Lincoln that's about six years old and relocating that to Highland Park and there will also be some elaborate hillside features and embankment slide and also A welcoming entry right now the most of the kids enter the playground through a very narrow and long ADA ramp and this is to make more of a plaza entry feature for making the playground more welcoming.

And again this bar is to the board action report is to accept the PTA's playground gift and again I'm happy to answer any questions.

I'd just like to give a shout out to the Highland Park PTSA and specifically to President Holly Briscoe who has done so much with so very little that it's an extraordinary group of folks.

It's a small group of folks and what they don't have in money they make up for in sweat equity.

It's very fun to work with the PTAs.

Any other questions or comments on this item?

Thank you.

Item number 10. BTA 3 and 4 award construction contract K5082 bid number B11636 to Sprinter for the athletic field improvements at Franklin High School project.

So this item was moved forward for consideration from the operations committee because we had just opened bids literally a day or two before we met and we had not completed our analysis of those bids.

We are recommending that we enter into an agreement with Sprint Turf and similar to the Roosevelt project that you approved tonight this also includes Field lighting infrastructure.

I noticed that it's in the narrative for the background information but I wanted to draw that to the board's attention because it's not in the title and it was in the title of the previous.

So we'll get the consistency right when you take action on this at the next board meeting.

So open it up to questions.

Questions or comments on this item?

Thank you.

So the next item is item 11 BEX 4 resolution 2016 17-20 acceptance of the building commissioning report for the Genesee Hill Elementary School replacement project.

So your acceptance of this report is required for OSPI Form D 11. Building commissioning is kind of a systematic approach that we implement at the end of a project to make sure that the computer control system for the environment and the light for the mechanical system and the electrical systems is functioning correctly.

And it's really bringing together folks who have a mechanical background and electrical background and a very deep knowledge in software programming and making sure that they all are talking somewhat the same language so that when someone says a damper is open 35 percent the computer screen shows that it's open 35 percent in that air handling unit that damper is indeed open 35 percent.

And what they're doing is a point to point verification Both visually and on the computer screen to make sure that everything is done correctly.

And so that's what you're approving.

We've completed that work at Genesee Hill Elementary School.

Our mechanical electrical coordinator is the person who oversees this commissioning team of the building.

They sign off on this commissioning list and then it comes before you.

They sign off that the work's complete then it comes before you for approval.

Any questions or comments about this item?

Okay thank you.

So on to item 12. BEX 4 and BTA 4 Lincoln High School modernization resolution 2016-17-21 intent to construct project.

So this is required for OSPI form D-9 and it is essentially a resolution that says that the money that OSPI provides in state construction assistance will indeed be spent to construct Lincoln High School or the modernizations at Lincoln High School.

Any questions on this item?

All right thank you.

Then item 13 BEX 4 and BTA 4 approval of the site specific educational specifications for the modernization at Lincoln High School project.

So the district uses a two step process for implementing high school implementing educational specifications.

We develop in a very broad group what we call a district wide high school education specification middle school education specification and elementary school education specification establishing really what are the district's goals for the project.

Then we work with an SDAC committee representative of a school community local community members partners with that school to develop what we call a site specific educational specification.

This educational specification was developed with input from staff at Nathan Hale Ballard and Roosevelt.

Jill Hudson led the effort.

As principal of Nathan Hill on the development of the site specific educational specification for Lincoln High School.

But I also want to convey there is approximately 40 people on the site specific education district wide education specification has between 40 to 50 people as well.

So you're getting a very broad perspective here and where this is required again for OSPI approval and SCAP funding assistance for this project.

Director Burke.

I know everybody wants to go home but when we said Lincoln and specifications I got intrigued.

And so I was wondering if you could tell me more about you know I've been looking through the different general education specifications and the site specific ones and I see a lot of variation between our different sites when we do the site specific ones.

Some of them are very detailed and some of them are very generic.

And in this case when I think about it's a high school it's the first high school we've done since before I was born.

I look at the site specific one and it doesn't feel to me like something that is specification level.

I guess to be more specific when I look at the high school ed spec is 346 pages.

The elementary school general is 112 pages and they go into great detail about finishes room sizes.

You know it's it's truly a specification you can design to and build to.

I looked across some of the different projects we've done and the ones that I consider to be model site specific ed specs operate as a variance where they say reference the general one but we changed this this this and this.

And so Loyal Heights is a really good example.

It's 22 pages and it talks about here's what we're doing in the building.

Here's what we're doing in bus loading.

Here's where we're looking at variations from the ed spec.

And so I'm wondering if that's something that we could do for this because it feels like an important project we should.

So to answer your question yes we can do that and I'm not sure if we can get it back to you by the time of the next board meeting.

I also know we don't need approval of this bar by your next board meeting so I'm we may end up postponing this a meeting but we can definitely get that information together for you where Lincoln High School's educational specifications varied from the district wide ed spec Director Burke and I think that's a great idea and it should have been in there.

Thank you.

Director Pinkham.

So probably a question that Flip would enjoy.

Any landmark issues we're going to run to you with the renovation of Lincoln that we need to be made aware of at this point or.

The landmarks board did nominate or did ask that the running tracks in the auxiliary gyms be retained.

We are not retaining those.

We have presented that to the landmarks board.

We are instead putting another floor in there and able to capture 12 additional classrooms.

That would be about both the boys and girls auxiliary gyms underneath the library at Lincoln High School.

There's an elevated running track on the boys side.

It was asked to be retained.

We're not retaining that.

Cover a couple of other specific items they talk about the building exterior.

We are for the most part retaining the building exterior.

There will be some minor additions but it needs to go through what they call the architectural review committee and then get their approval and then it goes to the landmarks board and gets their approval director Pinkham.

So it's heavily reviewed.

They then issue a document that is called controls and incentives.

We refer to it as CNI and these are essentially the conditions they place upon the project and then we check them off as to the measures that we're implementing.

We are still in that conversation with the landmarks board and how we're meeting those objectives.

So we do not yet have landmarks for approval from Lincoln High School.

We've articulated how we are going to try to achieve their objectives.

They've came back and said made some further requests.

We're looking at refining that and and we'll be representing our project to them.

But it's a very extensive process.

Any other questions or comments about this item.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

So that concludes the public portion of our meeting this evening.

The board will now recess into executive session.

Executive and closed sessions to discuss labor negotiations, potential litigation, complaints against a public employee, and to evaluate the performance of a public employee.

This is scheduled for 45 minutes with the anticipated end time of 925. All right.

Thank you.