All right Director McLaren stepped out just a moment she will be back momentarily.
We will go ahead and start with, I am just going to read the action item number off the one that is in front of me.
It says it is one I guess it is actually two and that is the 2015-16 state legislative agenda.
This is coming out of the executive committee and if we could have it read into the record and seconded and then we can discuss.
I move that the school board adopt the 2015-16 legislative agenda as attached to the board action report.
I second.
Thank you for the second.
Alright so this came through the executive committee and we had previously approved, we had approved the previous version for approval, recommended for approval but it's been changed so it's for consideration but by the whole board and with that I'm going to ask Ken Gotch to please speak to the changes.
Ken Gotch assistant superintendent for business and finance.
Since the introduction of this item we received several suggestions from board members, members of the public and our lobbyists.
Essentially the modifications we made was to make sure that one of our three goals specifically addressed the district's capacity needs and the capital funding needs of the district.
In addition we added several items including enhancing or specifically referencing the goal of our district as including every student, every classroom, every day.
We were asked to make sure that we spell out fully funding McCleary as our very first goal.
We also added specific language that addresses fixing the levy cliff now, not waiting until next session.
We also requested the state to fund measures to reduce eliminate disproportionate suspension.
And we also added some language asking the state to reconsider how smarter balance is used in scores for high stakes purpose testing in the next two years.
Those are essentially the changes that were made from the last meeting.
Alright thank you for that.
So let's open it up to questions and I saw Director Blanford's hand first.
If I remember correctly when this was first put forward there was the idea that less is more and that a tight focus might result in more efficacy actually on the floor of the legislature or wherever it is that folks are making decisions.
And so I'm wondering given the laundry list that you just read, laundry list is the wrong word that sounds judgmental and I don't mean for it to.
But given the length of the additions do we lose something?
We are still staying within the three basic goal principle and I think the executive team felt that the clear statements on McCleary, emphasizing capital certainly made good sense.
And then I think it gave us an opportunity to include some of the board's recent actions and making sure that we were reflecting some of the priorities of the board and encompassed within those three overall goals.
So the recent board action on reducing disproportionate suspensions, we know there is a cost to that action.
gives us a chance to at least remind our legislators that they could help us in that area we certainly would appreciate it.
Director Peasley.
So it says Seattle has three priorities for this session but then it only lists two priorities.
The third priority is closing the opportunity gap.
Okay so it's outside of the box.
It's an outside of the box priority.
I'm sure we can fix the typesetting.
I know my version it's in the box.
So the levy, fixing the levy cliff was among the three priorities and now it's gotten bumped down and it's underneath fully funding McCleary.
It's one of those either ors if you recall I think the consensus of the superintendents in the Puget Sound area was we should really be lobbying to get the state to fully fund education but if they don't fully fund it make sure they fix the levy cliffs so that districts aren't harmed by the loss of the potential local levy dollars.
And we're just making sure that in our particular agenda that we're adopting tonight that we're making that more visible in the discussion this fall and in the next spring.
Okay thank you.
Others?
Director Blanford.
I just want to be sure that we, that as explicitly as I can state it, that working on the achievement or opportunity gap is not outside of the box.
That's got to be hugely prioritized and if the box needs to be expanded let's make sure and do that.
Yes sir.
Director Peters.
I got it right this time.
Well I appreciate the effort that went into tweaking this a little bit more and taking some more input because I think the result here is a nice balance of some general requests and some specifics.
I think it is important to send a message to Olympia what sort of work we are doing specifically and where our challenges are.
I also think it is important to remind our legislators that some of these things we are trying to fund are mandates that come from them.
And so everything having to do with smarter balance is a good example of that.
And so I think it's important to have some details in a document like this.
Thank you.
Any other questions or comments from directors?
All right seeing none let's go ahead and call the roll Ms. Fodey.
Director Peters.
Aye.
Director Blanford.
Aye.
Director Martin-Morris.
Aye.
Director McLaren.
Aye.
Director Patu.
Aye.
Director Peasley.
Aye.
Director Karr.
Aye.
This motion has passed unanimously.
All right so the next item on the agenda was the transportation service standards and bill times that has been delayed for November 18. So that takes us to the restructuring of the partnership with the Alliance for Education.
And that is coming out of the executive committee and it doesn't appear that there's been any changes to the document since introduction and so we talked about the document as it was introduced.
Oh I'm sorry I got ahead of myself here.
Let's go ahead and read the motion into the record and have a second.
I move that the board authorize the superintendent to restructure how SPS partners with the alliance and hereby authorizes the superintendent to end all or part of SPS's relationship with the alliance depending upon SPS's needs and or SPS's ability to handle assume or outsource the work being done by the alliance including but not limited to any authorization for the alliance to fundraise on behalf of SPS and or use SPS's name or logo in any fundraising efforts.
I second the motion.
All right thank you.
So now it's been read in and seconded and covered the other stuff so let's go to questions and comments from directors.
So Director Peasley.
So my question is in the communications we've received from members of the alliance they're basically saying they're going to continue doing business as usual in spite of this.
So given what I just read in the form of a motion, how can they continue to do business as usual?
Good evening John Sirk, we act in general counsel.
So that's probably a better question for the CEO of the alliance as far as what they mean by that but what I think the intent is is that Director Karr and Dr. Nyland will send a communication if this is approved to the alliance probably relinquishing the seats on their board and informing them not to fundraise on behalf of the district unless we can partner and agree to like for example the Seattle teacher residency program in the letter back from the alliance they said they will do it for the original sum of $50,000 versus the prior commitment I think for this year was $200,000 plus.
So we'll need to enter into a contract with them if that's what Dr. Nyland wishes to do with respect to the STR.
So we'll need to specifically delineate in a letter to them that based on this action please do not do A, B, and C.
And I don't know what they mean by they'll continue to do what they do.
I suppose they could raise funds and offer them up and if they're not raising on our behalf like for STR in general then we'll need to look at that on a case-by-case basis.
Let me just ask for a little bit of clarification.
Given this action that we are about to take, exactly how will we be engaging with the alliance in any particular manner?
Will every single fundraising effort require a contract, an agreement?
How will it work going forward?
Ken Gatz, assistant superintendent for business and finance.
I know from a grants perspective we'll follow our grants protocol just like we would with any other agency in the state or in the city of Seattle.
I was stepping up to the microphone to also kind of remind you that we have PTAs and booster clubs that really support our schools on a daily basis that rely on the Alliance for the various account services and some of their fundraising services that they provide.
I spoke with the Ingram principal today before this meeting just to check with him.
He was one of the active users of the Alliance services and he's been very pleased with the support that his booster clubs and PTAs get through the alliance and we're not, I'm assuming we're not discouraging that from happening.
Those are important services, they're independent of the district and we certainly wouldn't want that to stop.
So I'm envisioning that those would be some of the activities that they'll still support the district on through these various independent groups.
So I'll offer my perspective on the answer.
I think what it is, so based on the recommendation I got from the city that we need to look at something more like an annual contract where you have a conversation, what do you want to cover the coming year, you put it under contract for that year.
and you do it on a year-by-year basis so that it's clear, it's bounded, there's no confusion about what the scope of work is so that we don't have continual misunderstandings about work that's being pursued that the leadership's not aware of and so forth.
So I would say that would be my recommendation on how to go forward is you button it down, put it in a contract and manage it as a contract like you would the relationship with the city or with any other supplier, however you want to characterize it, that we do business with.
Rather than this relationship-based agreement.
Okay.
Questions or comments from anyone else?
I keep looking this way but I need to look this way.
Let's go to Director Patu and then to Director Peters.
Okay, I need some clarification.
So originally I know for a fact that when the Alliance for Education became a partnership with the Seattle Public Schools that the goal was that they would raise money for needy schools.
And so right now I guess I am a little confused in terms of what exactly is the Alliance doing for the Seattle Public Schools right now in terms of actually in that direction.
I think the major portion of what the alliance is doing at this point in time is the Seattle teachers residency and that is targeted for higher need schools and it is intended to help attract teachers of color and not.
who are willing to make a long-term commitment to working in those high-need schools as long as they are getting the training and the development to work in that setting.
Thank you.
Director Peters did you have?
I just have comments at this point.
So this is a partnership, a relationship that has shifted over the years and I think we've reached a point where its value has changed as well and I think the balance is off.
And if people look at the letter that's attached to this document that explains the different issues that have come up I think that will make it clear why we are moving in this direction tonight.
You know a couple points that come, that raise concerns for me is if you have an organization that calls itself a partner but has its own strategic plan and its own agenda I think that's problematic.
Financially You know the numbers show that the alliance yes indeed helped raise money for our district and we are very grateful for that but for about a million dollars they raised for us they spent a million dollars on administration and management and so it looks like the partnership was not necessarily directed just at helping our district from what I could see.
So again the balance appeared to be off.
So, we do have other partners that we work with.
I know we have great partnership with Seattle University and I think there are other options for us in terms of fundraising.
And even with managing the finances for individual schools, I think there are other ways to go with that.
We could also put out an RFP and I've even heard that you can just use an accounting firm to handle some of these issues.
So, I think we do have other options and I thank the alliance for what they have done but I think this proposal tonight is the right direction to take.
Thank you.
Director Blanford.
I'm intending to vote in opposition to this proposal.
I shared a lot of my feelings on it at the last meeting so I won't go too far into depth on those.
I will share that over the course of the last couple of months I've spent a huge amount of time interacting with superintendents and school board directors from other districts as part of a research project that I've been engaged in.
Usually when those conversations are over someone will ask me what's going on with the alliance?
And usually it's followed up with a question of how can you sever a relationship?
We would kill to have an organization like the alliance.
And so that's given me pause.
When I first heard that there were challenges with the relationship I volunteered to serve on a committee, on a subcommittee to try to work through some of those relationships and one of the things that I recommended was just a cooling off period.
I recognize fully that there has been misalignment in some of the interest and some of the personality challenges that have popped up and that didn't go very far in the conversation and so my hope is that at some point that we will be able to reengage in such a way but I can in good conscience especially given all of the challenges that we face financially and the fact that we routinely as mantra usually up on the dais at some point talk about the fact that we are under resourced and trying to do work with not enough money.
that we would sever a relationship that does bring revenue into the district and helps to fund some of the projects and initiatives that I see as forward thinking and moving the district forward.
So all of that to say that I won't be supporting this proposal.
Director Martin-Morris.
So I would probably say that it's not that we are severing the relationship, we are changing the relationship.
The relationship is being modified which is what we are doing here.
Part of that modification is removing ourselves from their board and a couple of other things.
I think we will always have a connection it's just that we want to change the terms of that and I think quite honestly we have been trying for well over a year to come to kind of a balance in this relationship and we were unsuccessful.
And so at some point you have to know when to fish or cut bait I guess.
And I think that's the place that we are now.
So that's just my general comment.
Thank you.
Director Peasley.
I agree with Harry.
I think that the potential for a different kind of relationship continues to exist.
We have made our needs extremely clear.
We have been meeting with the alliance for over a year.
Three superintendents in a row have raised concerns.
And because there has been a lack of responsiveness to our concerns it has led us to this decision.
So I would say that yes there is always the potential to reset the relationship.
We need a fundraising partner that is fully in support.
of the initiatives that we feel are in the best interest of our students.
Thank you.
Director McLaren.
So just to add one other point.
It is true that it is very sad to let go of a relationship that does give some benefit to our students.
I am a particular admirer of the teacher residency.
I just think that is one of the most exciting things that has happened in the field of education in the region.
That said, the thing that I notice is that the relationship has cost the board and the staff a tremendous amount of time and energy in the time that I've been on the board.
And so I am in favor of this restructuring.
Other questions or comments?
I'll just make a few comments.
As the other directors have laid out this decision has been coming for some time.
There have been some longstanding concerns that need to be addressed and one of the directors mentioned that our concerns are outlined pretty clearly in the attachment to the bar in the letter that we wrote.
The bottom line is Seattle Public Schools needs a foundation partner.
Someone that aligns with our priorities and the alliance for education has been very clear they want to be an independent voice and they want to be a critical friend.
And they have made it crystal clear they are not a foundation.
So I think that you see circles that are not in alignment when you look at it that way.
I've said before I'll say again the board doesn't make decisions we make choices.
And the choices that we're making here tonight are exactly the ones that Director McLaren just identified.
We have allowed an inordinate amount of board and leadership time to be spent on trying to restructure this relationship.
And at the end of the day there are some very significant needs in Seattle Public Schools and we need to be focusing our leadership attention on issues that will drive improvements in student achievement in our schools.
And every minute that we spend continuing to have conversation are minutes that we don't spend focused on those priorities.
And so in my mind it's time to hit the reset button and look at a different way to go forward.
Like Director Blanford I hope that there's a day in the future where we can look at something different but for right now I think that this is for me the right thing to do.
So with that I'll go ahead and call for the vote please.
Director Martin-Morris.
Director McLaren.
Aye.
Director Patu.
Aye.
Director Peasley.
Aye.
Director Peters.
Aye.
Director Blanford.
No.
Director Karr.
Aye.
This motion has passed by a vote of 6-1.
Thank you.
Alright I've completely lost track of the number but we will go to the next one on the list and that would be the operations levy and authorizing resolution 2015-16-9 coming out of audit and finance and ops.
I move that Seattle school board accept the proposed operations levy and adopt resolution 2015 slash 16-9 which places a three-year levy totaling $758.3 million on the February 9, 2016 ballot as attached to the board action report.
I second the motion.
Thank you.
All right and so I see yellow so let's first go to the things that have changed and then we'll go for committee recommendations after that.
So Mr. Gottsch.
I just wanted to point out to the board that I amended the BAR to reflect the fact that we held a public hearing on October 28. and that 11 members of the public commented on the levy.
I thought it was important to do that because it's a nice step that we kind of missed towards the end of the process and I know the next time this comes around the fact that we have that little item in the bar will help remind us to make sure we're planning that public hearing for communication.
Alright and with that I'd like to hear first from the ops chair and then excuse me from the A&F chair and then from the ops chair.
This did come before the audit and finance committee on October 6 with a recommendation for approval by the entire board.
Thank you.
And then from ops please.
This also came to the committee, the full committee and it was also recommended by the committee to move it forward for approval.
Okay thank you.
All right so with that let's go ahead and open it up to questions from directors.
I have one and it may be Dr. Herndon that has to help me with it or not.
One of the ballot measures there was a concern about the language in the title that it didn't reference replacement in the title of the ballot measure and did that get rectified?
Or was that item number five?
Flip Herndon, Associate Superintendent.
I believe that is item number 10.
All right any other questions on this ever so important measure?
All right so I think with that I'm not seeing anybody having questions let's go ahead and go to the vote please.
Director Patu.
Aye.
Director Peasley.
Aye.
Director Peters.
Aye.
Director Blanford.
Aye.
Director Martin-Morris.
Aye.
Director Karr.
Aye.
This motion has passed unanimously.
Alright so the next item on the agenda is BEX IV authorized purchase orders through bid number B09510 to Dell and Apple for the purchase of classroom technology for learning coming from Ops.
I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute purchase orders through bid number B09510 with Dell and Apple for a total amount not to exceed $3.25 million over the 2015-16 fiscal year plus Washington state sales tax in the form of the draft purchase orders attached to the board action report with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the purchase orders.
I second the motion.
Alright and if I could now please hear from the ops committee chair.
Okay this item came to the ops committee October 15 and the committee reviewed it and they recommended that we move forward for consideration by the food board.
Thank you.
And so this one indicates that the bar has, something's been edited on the bar and the attachments so can we cover what those changes were?
Yes, Carmen Ram chief information officer.
The changes to the bar were simply because we went from I'm initially feeling that we're going to go forward with a contract over a couple of years to realizing that because of the changes in technology which would occur over the next 18 months and price changes that we would go with a competitive purchase order which is what we went out with this year.
And since the pricing and the models of the computer will likely change we felt that we would go forward with a one year agreement to the board and then come back next year with another bar addressing the computers next year so that's why it changes from a two-year contract to a one-year competitive bid.
Other than that everything else is the same.
Thank you for that.
So what questions do directors have?
I'm not hearing or seeing anyone indicating they have a question so I think that means we can go straight to a vote.
Ms. Fodey please.
Director Patu.
Aye.
Director Peasley.
Aye.
Director Peters.
Aye.
Director Blanford.
Aye.
Director Martin-Morris.
Aye.
Director McLaren.
Aye.
Director Karr.
Aye.
This motion is passed unanimously.
Thank you.
All right the next item is entitled BEX IV award contract number RFP09506 to Thornburg Computing Services LLC for computer installation and software, excuse me support services coming from ops.
So if we could have a motion please.
I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute contract number RFP09506 with Thornburg computer services LLC in the amount of $300,000 over the 2015-16 and 2016-17 fiscal years 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 actions to implement the contracts.
I second the motion.
All right and if we could hear from the ops committee chair please.
This item also came to the ops committee on October 15 and the committee recommended that we move forward for full board consideration.
Thank you.
So there appear to be no changes on this one so with that why don't I go ahead and open it up to questions or comments from directors.
Director Blanford.
Did I hear that this was moved forward for consideration or approval?
And if, can you share why consideration?
At the time of the proposal to the ops committee we were still in the RFP process so we had not selected the vendor at that time.
Thank you for that clarification.
Other questions or comments?
Alright so with that let's go ahead and take it to the vote Ms. Fodey.
Director Peasley.
Aye.
Director Peters.
Aye.
Director Blanford.
Aye.
Director Martin-Morris.
Aye.
Director McLaren.
Aye.
Director Patu.
Aye.
Director Karr.
Aye.
This motion is passed unanimously.
Thank you.
All right the next one is the approval of the student sign-off plan that one was removed so we move on to the update on the 2013-2020 growth boundaries plan coming out of operations.
And so let's go ahead and it's coming out of ops so let's go ahead and read it into the record and then I note that there is an amendment on this one so we will take that one up after that.
I move that the school board approve this change to the growth boundaries plan for student assignment i.e. the addition of area 53 location of E.C.
Hughes site to Roxhill Elementary rather than to Arbor Heights.
I second the motion.
All right.
And a question of clarification to Ms. Hale.
Do we offer the opportunity for questions or do we go straight to the amendment?
All right so let's open it up to questions about the original growth boundaries plan from directors.
Director Peters.
Okay I know we did receive some concerns about what this would do to the.
to the capacity in each of the different buildings and how the buildings would be used.
I'm sorry I have to find the file here.
Was that all resolved?
Were those questions answered?
I think specifically it had to do with closing.
Let's see.
I'm sorry Dr. Herndon if you wouldn't mind.
Yes Flip Herndon, associate superintendent of facilities and operations.
So there was some concerns that were brought up about balancing that out.
So one of the things we did have an opportunity to talk to the principals in that area and did show them the projections.
The reason why this boundary revision was asked for to begin with were some of those movements.
We had the new building of Arbor Heights coming on which was a boundary that had to be implemented The other areas moving from West Seattle to Roxhill were implemented because the future projections of West Seattle would be exceeding the capacity, the physical capacity of West Seattle as a building.
So this is balancing that out.
Roxhill moving into that boundary area.
UC Hughes moving into the boundary area.
Again EC Hughes is a much better condition building and the original conversation was to include that in 13. We didn't make that final action in the original 13 boundary conversations.
We have not determined what would happen with Roxhill as a building but the overall condition of that building is not very good so we would have to figure out what we want to do with that building in the future but it's a much smaller site, smaller capacity and a poor condition building than that of EC Hughes as it currently stands even without putting any money into it.
We do have some legislative dollars, our Seattle delegation were able to garner some legislative dollars to help with some capital upgrades at EC Hughes mostly mechanical systems.
But the building overall is in very good condition.
Would the Roxhill building be a contender for an interim building?
It's possible.
Again it's got a pretty small overall capacity so unless it's a small elementary it wouldn't work for instance as an interim capacity for a middle school.
It just doesn't have the ability to do that.
The gymnasium is incredibly small so it could be used for maybe another elementary school maybe but even with that you know the overall condition is just a challenge of that building.
So I'm not, the determination of what we would do with that building is unknown but part of this was to make sure that the Roxhill boundary, attendance boundary students could be in a much better condition building with more size available as well so there is room to grow into the UC Hughes building.
Thank you.
All right let's go to Director Blanford and then to Director McLaren.
I'm looking at the schematic that you produced, someone in your shop produced around the Roxhill attendance area.
And it shows a gray area that looks as though in the south, what would be southeast corner of it, south of South Roxbury Street.
And it looks to me like it is an attendance area.
unless I'm mistaken that is the south boundary of the city of Seattle?
Correct.
So I'm reading it wrong in that that's not an attendance area for us.
Correct.
That is the southernmost boundary of the Seattle school district.
That's what I thought.
That's what I thought.
So it's northernmost boundary of Highline school.
Correct.
Okay.
Got it.
Okay let's go to Director McLaren and then after that to Director Patu.
I have a comment and a question.
The comment is that I was able to speak with both of the principals of the schools involved today and I heard a report of the meeting that they had had with you and Israel Villa.
And so I was assured that they are comfortable with this change.
And then the question is just for public information.
Could you please say what you told me about why EC Hughes has to us who are in the area unexpectedly received money for renovations and how that came about.
So again we had some conversation with the Seattle delegation about a variety of possible capital projects.
EC Hughes was a building that we had previously leased out to Westside school and they were building their own school so that property was coming back to us.
There is also another agenda item on purchasing portables from that property that they had there.
So the opportunity then came up, we knew we were getting that property back as good a condition as Westside school had taken of the building.
There were certainly mechanical systems, they didn't have the capital ability to invest and upgrade in some of those systems.
When we were asked about possible legislative dollars that could enhance some of the buildings this was a good project for us because it wasn't a considerable amount of money that could enhance this building and it was again the opportunity to bring on more seats possible at a relatively low cost of investment.
So it was just a good opportunity.
It was that building.
and Magnolia was another building that we were looking at and we received legislative dollars for that as well.
So I have a bit of a follow-up on that.
So could you speak to the, some members of the Roxhill community were surprised to hear that we are anticipating having them move to the E.C.
Hughes building.
And some have said that they would want to see us renovate the Roxhill building so that they could eventually reoccupy it.
Could you speak to what the challenges of that scenario?
I certainly will try my best.
The renovation of a particular building requires currently full building renovations would vary.
I would project, I don't know for sure, that the condition of the Roxhill building would probably be better served by demolition and a complete rebuild than trying to renovate that particularly small building.
It's also a fairly confined lot size.
So we have some challenges when we look at some of these pieces as you've heard other comments in other projects where we also have small lot sizes.
So the ability to renovate that building would be running in the, I don't know, 15, $25 million range.
That's what a new school costs us roughly.
Depends on what we're doing and how big we're building it.
So, and that's not currently in any of our levies that we're looking at now.
It's always a possibility in the future if our density continues to grow.
It's not a building or location that I would suggest we sell or get rid of.
I'm a fan of keeping all of our properties because I believe we'll need them all eventually.
So, what it would be used in the interim site?
that would have to be a discussion about what might work well there.
So it could be a program location, it could be something else, some use for us.
But it does and should have some capital investment to really make it a better occupied building and more efficient building.
It's just, I don't know how else to say the condition of the building.
We certainly have some buildings in worse condition but I would say we have substantially more buildings that are in better condition than that particular one.
And so it would take a lot more money to put that building into good shape.
Correct.
Than for example renovating EC Hughes.
Correct.
All right I think Director Patu is next.
I just want some clarification.
A couple of times I've heard speakers talk about Olympic Hills, how the boundary has actually separated the rich kids with the low-income kids and all the rich kids are going to one school and all the low-income kids are going to one school.
Is there any truth to that?
Betty that's more my amendment which is coming up.
I haven't introduced my amendment.
All right so other questions on the main motion?
Looks like not so with that let's go to the amendment from Director Peasley.
So if you could read the amendment please.
I move that the board amend the 2013-20 growth boundaries plan to include a motion that reads I also move that the board approve that the requested changes in the boundaries between Olympic Hills, Cedar Park and John Rogers will be considered in the school year 2016-17 annual review of boundaries for changes that go into effect for the 2017-18 school year.
The attached documents showing possible changes requested by the communities will be considered along with further community engagement, staff analysis and data as part of the review process.
I second that.
Okay all right so now Director Peasley would speak to that amendment.
I'm pretty much just going to read the background information because I doubt that anybody has.
The communities of Olympic Hill, Cedar Park, and John Rogers have repeatedly requested consideration of their concerns and requested boundary changes.
They would like assurance that these will be considered in time to make changes for the school year beginning 2017. Staff does not have time to do the required analysis and community engagement this year and it is not required since annual boundary adjustments are made for the following school year.
This amendment provides assurances to the communities that their concerns and requests will be addressed in school year 2016-17 as part of a thorough process that includes further community engagement staff analysis and data.
The communities are negatively impacted by the current boundaries.
Over 100 students will be required to cross Lake City Way to Cedar Park.
In order to address safety issues yellow buses will be required to transport these students a few blocks.
Redrawing boundaries will make it possible for these students to walk to Olympic Hills.
This will save SPS the cost of unnecessary buses.
It will also positively impact enrollment at both Cedar Park and Olympic Hills.
Current boundaries result in under enrollment at Olympic Hills and overcrowding at Cedar Park.
Overcrowding at Cedar Park is an ongoing concern.
The communities request that this be avoided.
They request that Cedar Park be considered as an interim site that an expansion rebuild of John Rogers be considered in the planning for the next BEX levy to address capacity needs in this area.
Boundaries between John Rogers and Cedar Park also have negative impacts on the enrollment and demographic balance between the two schools.
The communities request that these boundaries be reconsidered as part of the review process.
Thank you.
All right so with that.
Teresa do I take questions or do we vote on the motion?
We take questions on the amendment right?
Okay sorry it's getting late.
All right so questions on the amendment from anyone?
Director McLaren.
So I just want to confirm, I know that there has been considerable concern about making this change before the actual boundary change happens.
And we have been told that staff does not have time to do it now.
So what this does is it makes a promise in black and white that is undersigned by the board that we will commit to visiting this issue and making whatever changes are necessary.
Yes and I would add that Flip is in support of this plan.
Would you like to speak to it Flip?
Sure I can speak to it.
Yes we've had some conversation again talking with principals from both of those particular buildings and I did have conversations with some community members at one of the boundary meetings that we had in the Northeast earlier this fall and I did commit that we would go out there and work with those communities in the late winter and early spring of this particular school year in preparation for the consideration in basically a year from now looking at boundaries for 17-18 in the fall of 16. So, this allows us the time to be able to do that thoughtfully, to be able to look at the data, share that data with those communities, take into some other considerations that we have in there and then make a well-informed decision or recommendation to the board rather than trying to go through that and not be accurate in our data.
Director Blanford.
On its face it seems very supportable, the amendment.
Though I find myself wondering a little bit about the rationale that has been promoted to support the amendment.
Namely does it open a can of worms that other school communities could say because of demographic shifts or whatever we want to be grandfathered or we want to be treated differently than the other schools?
Well I mean there's one of the commitments that we made in 2013 was to make sure that we reviewed the upcoming boundaries every year.
So if there was new information or data that would suggest to us that we need to take a look at these again and revise them.
than we would, we would do that.
17-18 is a pretty big year for boundary implementations and most of these boundaries coincide with the completion of a capital project which is true in this case.
So we know that we are going to need to do a lot of scrutiny of this anyway because we want to make sure that we are not revisiting boundaries every year, every two years or every three years so we do want to make sure that If there haven't been any trends or differences in the data from 2013 until we are looking at that it makes sense for us to update that information and see if it warrants any sort of modification to what was originally proposed.
But that would be the case for any school?
Correct.
So this is just basically saying we are looking at that, we understand the concerns that are coming from these communities.
And if there are changes in that data that would support us redoing that we can certainly take a look at that.
But it doesn't mean that we won't be looking at the other boundaries being implemented in 1718 as well.
We do that for all of the boundaries that we are looking at for implementation, look at that data.
So in this particular case we are hearing what this is and we are taking a look at that to see if there is any data that suggests something other than what we are looking at as well as possibilities so one of the considerations is whether or not it would be included in a future levy which obviously could impact the capacity of the building which could have an impact on the boundaries.
We have a couple of those actually that we are looking at to say.
Okay, if we're staging this, then this particular project in BEX V, what does that do to the boundaries now that we're implementing, for instance, in 19-20?
The other, which is an item that is coming up soon around the BTA IV, so one of the items in there is a property acquisition.
So in the event we were to acquire more property, certainly that could have an impact on boundaries that might be implemented in the area if we found property and chose to build on there sooner rather than later.
So we try and take all of that into consideration.
You know if I could just add some additional perspective to the answer.
Going back to your original question, I would say as we defined and implemented the new student assignment plan and updated, did a major update in 2013, it was fairly commonplace that groups within the community were coming forward with their ideas for you know how you might rejigger a boundary and what that would mean from a demographics perspective and a numbers perspective.
There were a host of reasons why a community might come forward with a specific proposal but certainly the kind of rationale that's been laid out here was among them and it was fairly commonplace.
We must have had 75 or 100 different types of these recommendations coming forward and as you might remember Director Blanford you weren't on the board yet but I know you've mentioned that we basically did that student assignment plan update by amendment the night of the vote so and others here remember that so you know it's not a common approach and I think the key is Director McLaren and Director Peaslee said is try to lay a marker down so that it doesn't get forgotten.
And that the community can kind of say okay we're on the radar and we know they'll take a look at it.
Other questions or comments on the amendment?
I just want to say that's very helpful to have the historical perspective as well.
And promises made.
I understand completely school communities that want to get us on record because we've heard enough examples of people leaving from here thinking that promises were made and then there's no record of it.
All right so I'm not seeing any other questions or comments so let's go to a vote on the amendment.
And this vote is to just the main motion to accept the, right?
We're going to do two votes or are we just, yeah, okay.
So this is to approve the amendment or not.
What are you pointing at?
I was noting that someone was raising their hand.
They didn't want us to get in trouble.
Okay, all right.
She withdrew her.
Okay, all right.
All right so you can keep me in line Ms. Hale.
All right so let's go ahead and again this is a vote on the proposed amendment that Director Peasley has put forward.
So if we could have a roll call please.
Director Blanford.
Director Morris.
Aye.
Director McLaren.
Aye.
Director Patu.
Aye.
Director Peasley.
Aye.
Director Peters.
Aye.
Director Karr.
Aye.
This motion is passed unanimously.
All right.
And so now what we will need to do is have Director Peasley read the original motion into the record with the additional amendment language and I'll need a second from Director McLaren.
I move that the school board approve this change to the growth boundaries plan for student assignment i.e. the addition of area 53 location of E.C.
Hughes site to Roxhill Elementary rather than to Arbor Heights.
I also move that the board approve that the requested changes in the boundaries between Olympic Hills, Cedar Park and John Rogers will be considered in the school year 2016-17 annual review of boundaries for the changes that go into effect for the 2017-18 school year.
The attached documents showing possible changes requested by the communities will be considered along with further community engagement, staff analysis and data as part of the review process.
I second the motion.
All right so I think we've discussed it pretty thoroughly.
Last call on questions.
All right so seeing none let's go ahead and call the roll.
Director Peters.
Director Blanford.
Aye.
Director Martin-Morris.
Aye.
Director McLaren.
Aye.
Director Patu.
Aye.
Director Peasley.
Aye.
Director Karr.
Aye.
This motion has passed unanimously.
Thank you.
All right the next item property exchange agreement with the City of Seattle for the disposition of district owned property located at South Shore School in exchange for city owned property located at Garfield Playfield and this is coming out of audit and finance so let's hear the motion please.
This is a long motion.
I move that the superintendent be authorized to do the following.
A, execute and deliver the property exchange agreement with the City of Seattle substantially in the form attached hereto as attachment one Contemplating the exchange of district owned real property located at the South Shore school for real property located adjacent to Garfield high school and owned by the city and for $24,028.19 in cash and provision of in-kind construction services by the city The grant of mutual easements by the city and the district and the potential 58-year lease of the Teen Life Center at Garfield High School to the city and B, negotiate and execute any and all documents necessary to accomplish the transactions contemplated by the property exchange agreement and do any other and all other things necessary and advisable to be done to accomplish the foregoing in accordance with applicable law.
I further move that any acts made in furtherance of the property exchange agreement and prior to the date of this motion including without limitation The recording of the lot boundary adjustments adjusting the property boundary between Garfield high school and Garfield playfield and the property boundary between South Shore school and the Rainier Beach community center be ratified and confirmed.
I further move that the real property located at the South Shore school that is described in the property exchange agreement exhibit B attachment 1 be declared permanently surplus because it is not needed for school purposes and that the Garfield teen life center be declared temporarily surplus because it is not needed for school purposes during the term of the lease to be entered into with the city.
I further move that the requirements of policy 6882 rental lease and sale of real property be waived for this motion only.
I second the motion.
All right I do believe that has to be the longest motion that I have ever heard in eight years.
So thank you for reading that.
And so with that, just one second I wasn't where I needed to be.
It appears that there was an edit to the action report so if we could hear about the edit to the action report and then we'll go to the A&F committee for a recommendation from the committee.
Good evening John Zirk, Reacting General Counsel.
The edit was in the title we had said elementary versus school so we corrected the title to reflect the correct name.
All right thank you very much for that.
And Director Martin Morris.
Please.
Yes this did come before the Audit and Finance Committee on October 6 with a recommendation for approval by the entire board.
Thank you.
So what questions do directors have?
Director McLaren.
So I think for the record it would be good to hear a brief description of why we are waiving the policy on rentals and leases.
So I attempted to highlight that at the last board meeting but I will do that again tonight.
A prior policy was in place when this was the transaction occurred back in 2006-2008 timeframe.
So the current policy that we are asking you to waive 6882 was adopted long after those two properties were exchanged.
So what the current policy states which is what you would need to really apply when you are looking particularly with the leases is that if it is a youth education center rent can be reduced 50% but leases must be reviewed every two years.
The agreement that was entered into by the parties at the time was for a 43 year lease plus 15 years of extensions.
at $1 per year so you are not complying with the terms of 6882 by reviewing this every two years and you're only getting $1 for rental fees per year not a reduced 50% value.
We have not done a comparison of a long-term lease to a sale.
I see no documentation that was done in 2006 presumably because this policy was not in place then.
A long-term lease of property normally accomplished through a publicly advertised request for proposals.
I see no documentation that that was done.
The board does need to approve long-term leases and this is a 58 year lease so you are compliant with that part of the policy.
There is another general provision in this long 6882 whenever the school board decides to lease a property for less than highest financial return the board shall state by resolution the reasons for the decision.
All the individuals who participate in that decision are no longer district employees and it is difficult to go back with fidelity and recreate a resolution for you.
As to why the decision was made to enter into this lease and the terms what we know is this is what was agreed upon.
Director Blanford.
So in the audit and finance committee meeting we had a rich discussion about all the issues that you just raised and I found myself wondering about the review process to assure that we're in alignment with our policies when we're making purchases or selling property.
Can you speak to any changes that have been made or ways of reviewing so that we have some assurance that in the future that this won't occur again?
So I'd probably turn that over to Dr. Herndon or Richard Best as you know when we're dealing with new construction projects and purchasing property what they would do to ensure that we own the land we're building on.
So that's kind of another.
I can comment a little bit on part of this.
This is definitely not a position we would like to be in and part of this really has to do with our ability to document and find all of these records.
So many of our property records are not digitized so we are trying to actually get to a position where we can search and find these documents.
We have several very interesting partial land ownerships with the city or parks and there are a bunch of them.
And sometimes we don't run into them until we have an action where one or the other entities is wanting to do work on a portion of the field.
So I'll give just one example.
which is besides this one which would be the athletic field at Cleveland high school.
So parks currently owns two-thirds of that field we own one-third of that field which makes for a very interesting dynamic in when you go to upgrade or do any sort of construction on it then we start to run into issues.
The other one that we have right now is also at the Meany building.
So the annex portion at the Meany building we don't own but we in working with the city and the Department of Developing are being held to updating the substantial alterations for the entire envelope of the building even though part of that envelope we don't own.
So it's a, but it's all one structure.
So it's a challenge in trying to make sure that we can sort some of these out and We have a lot of properties but we do want to get to the position where we have a handle on all of these.
It's going to take us some time to go through and digitize everything that we own and where we own and with the portions but it is one of the pieces that I'm looking forward to in some future capital developments is basically understanding what we own, where we own percentages, when these things were owned, there are other examples of deals that were made but basically never signed off on.
So we're 98% of the way there but back in 1965 nobody signed the actual document so everything is in place except for that final signature.
So that's what we're hoping to avoid in the future but because I don't like us stubbing our toe on these kinds of things as we just kind of bump into them.
So just one really quick question, as follow-up you mentioned something about being able to digitize and then that solving some of our problem, it won't solve the problem obviously of an unsigned document from 1965 right?
Well what it will do though is if we get all of the records pertaining to those digitized, essentially we're revisiting those and we're not waiting until we're doing something with that property.
Because oftentimes if we have that property It could be an entire paper file that is just sitting in a spot, not seeing the light of day until we're having some action on it.
If we are moving to the point where we're starting to digitize all those records, we're actually looking at those, revisiting them, then we can see.
Okay, do we have ownership of this?
If so, what percentage of this?
Is there some sort of amendment here that this was involved in part of a deal with something else?
So I just at least want to get our records straight.
I can't speak for the city's records and what they have but at least on our side we would know some of these areas.
But it's going to take, it's someone's full-time job that we don't currently have hired.
And is there, I heard a lot about the digitizing process so is there a range when that would be complete?
We are just starting to explore that right now.
We don't have the current bandwidth to do that but it is something that we are looking at for these future capital levies.
Other questions or comments?
All right I think with that we can go ahead and call the roll Ms. Fodey please.
Director McLaren.
Aye.
Director Patu.
Aye.
Director Peasley.
Aye.
Director Peters.
Aye.
Director Blanford.
Aye.
Director Karr.
Aye.
This motion is passed unanimously.
All right and so the next item is BTA IV award contract number RFP 09506. Oh no no no I'm sorry.
Wow it's getting late.
Try that one again, scratch.
All right it's BTA IV levy and authorizing resolution 2015 slash 16-10 coming out of audit and finance and ops.
I move that the board adopt resolution 2015 slash 16-10 which places a six-year capital levy totaling $475.3 million.
on the February 9, 2016 special election ballot for voter approval to fund the buildings technology and academics slash athletics BTA for capital levy and provide funding for construction, replacement, renovation and modernization of educational facilities throughout the district.
Addressing the backlog of maintenance and repair, BMAR and further investment in the technological needs of students and staff and improving athletic fields that provide an accessible and safe surface for student participation as attached to the board action report.
I second the motion.
Thank you.
All right and this item does look like it's been edited so why don't we just go to A&F first and then to ops and then we'll talk about the edits.
This also came before the audit and finance committee on October 6 with a recommendation for approval by the entire board.
And if we could hear from Ops please.
This also came to Ops and it was also recommended by the committee to move forward for board approval.
All right thank you.
So if someone could please speak to the edits that are highlighted on the agenda.
Looks like the action report and attachment have been edited.
Ken Gotch, assistant superintendent for business and finance.
I know in this resolution I made one edit just to reflect the October 28th community or public board meeting on the levies.
And as I was sitting in the back of the room I also noticed that this version of the resolution had changed from introduction.
to an earlier version so there's a section 2 that's not corrected on your version that talks about issuing of principal amounts for bonds issued to refinance the John Stanford Center is the way it reads in this version but that's the wrong version.
The version that we had at introduction Talked about the introducing of payments of principal and obligations occurred for the financing of construction, modernization, and remodeling of other capital fund expenditures.
We had speakers at introduction ask questions about what that meant.
I wrote a Friday memo to the board that talked about our goal was to not only pay three years worth of debt service on the John Stanford Center bonds but also to include a variety of school computer leases such as at the Queen Anne Elementary School where the principal had a pilot program for student computers and our ability to retire those leases would allow the school to not have to charge parents tuition so we wanted a slightly more general language so we could accomplish those purposes as well with this levy.
So I'd like to ask the board's permission if we could amend that paragraph.
the way we had it read in introduction so it's properly reflected in this board action item.
Okay.
I was with you all the way up until the end.
So are you saying we need to amend the language in the motion?
Not the motion but it's information that's in the attached resolution.
I believe the motion itself is correct.
Is the resolution correct?
So what are we amending?
We are amending the resolution that is in the body of the materials that go with the bar.
So we are adjusting the resolution.
That's what we're going to sign tonight.
Correct.
So we'll be adjusting the resolution.
Okay so I need someone to advise me on this.
Either Teresa or John Cerqui.
Teresa is in the back and when I went to Teresa I said hey Teresa this is not the resolution that was introduced to the board.
As I'm reading it it's missing language that was changed and she had said that somebody had just inserted the wrong document.
So can we get the correct document inserted?
That's what she said she can do but I was asked to at least mention the changes.
I'm sorry I don't mean to be edgy I'm just starting to fade and I was having a hard time tracking you.
Director Carr, John Cerqui Acting General Counsel.
So I would want you to approve the exact resolution so I'd want that posted so that you're all on the same page when you're voting.
So I don't know if you want to move on to the next item or wait for Theresa to come back and ensure that it's been posted but I would not take a vote.
Okay so he didn't quite finish so we would go on to another item come back to this one after she's confirmed that she has updated the attachment to be the one that we want it to be.
Yes that would be my recommendation or you could take a break and we could resume whatever you would like to do.
But my recommendation is you vote on what is actually posted.
Absolutely I want to be sure it is the right document that is in there.
So I would make a motion to table the current item until we have dealt with the item that is scheduled on the agenda.
I don't know that we even have to do that to just come back to it.
All right so if I am overhearing correctly I believe she just indicated that she has refreshed the document.
Is that true Teresa?
It's posted so if we hit the refresh button the corrected document should appear.
Can we look at that on the screen so that we're all clear what we're looking at?
It's going back to the one that was at introduction, right?
Is that what I heard you say Mr. Gottsch?
Yes.
All right.
So we just got the wrong document attached.
We've got the right one if we hit the refresh button.
Can someone please, someone from staff please confirm that what we've got attached is the right one.
We can't do this wrong.
We've got to have it right because this is going in front of the voters.
Can someone direct us to which page we are looking at please?
This is page 2 of the resolution section 2 and the version that was attached to today's board agenda had the outdated sentence of included the payments of principal amounts of bonds issued to refinance the construction of the John C. Stanford Center for Educational Excellence.
but the language that was in the original introductory items mentioned including the payment of principal amount of bonds issued to refinance academic facilities including the payment of principal amount of bonds issued to refinance the construction, that's the wrong one.
We all need to look, we need the right one and we all need to be looking at the right one.
So we're clicking on the attachment that says resolution 2015-16 underscore 10 right?
Correct.
And tell me what page you're referring to so we all can have eyes on the right document.
I don't know how to answer.
It's page 2 of the resolution.
And it is redlined.
My document has no page numbers.
The beginning of the page starts with
Oh wow this is a long page.
Okay so it's the page that starts whereas the Board of Directors finds that preparation of a voters pamphlet would inform and educate voters and the edited version if us board directors page down it's the last three sentences have been adjusted.
And it says including payment of the principal amount of obligations incurred for the financing of construction modernization and remodeling and other capital fund expenditures as may be found necessary by the board of directors.
That's the correct language.
It strikes out the specific call out about the John Stanford center for excellence.
And that will be in the explanatory talking points if someone wants to understand what We're doing there.
Correct.
But it's not in the main resolution.
And it's the same sentence that the public was asking about at introduction.
Okay.
That I wrote the Friday memo to the board to describe what that was all for.
All right.
So is everybody clear which one we're looking at?
I need a yes or no from someone.
Okay you guys, we are all clear?
Okay so questions.
Director Peters take it away.
Okay Ken you might have answered this at the beginning but now that I know what you are talking about Can you tell me why the John Stanford Center specifically, why it's no longer specific to that?
Why that's taken out?
Because we had a series of school leases that were pilot in nature that for example the Queen Anne Elementary School had a pilot one-on-one computer lease program that parents were paying an annual tuition fee for.
By us modifying that language we are able to purchase those leases out and allow the school to have those computers without parents having to pay a fee.
So in the board Friday memo to the board I inventory the five or six schools that had these computer leases and this change would allow us to retire those leases.
So where does that leave the John Stanford Center?
It's still included in that language.
Now I can add the additional purposes to be on the John Stanford Center lease payments or debt service payments to also include these computer leases.
So it's a line item that happens to include more than one thing.
It was originally very narrowly drawn and I asked the lawyers how could we change that sentence so I could include more.
purposes behind it.
So this is the broader language that allowed me to do that.
Thank you.
Director Peasley.
So where then in the new version is it made clear that the John Stanford Center is going to be covered?
It's not spelled out.
It's part of a broad sentence.
So when the public asked that very question at the introduction we responded with a fuller discussion.
So nowhere in this document does it clarify that John Stanford Center is part of the levy?
It is spelled out in the various presentations and instructions as capital and technology financing obligation principal payments is how it is described in the various schedules.
Okay but it is not called out as John Stanford Center so we are going to be called on the carpet for trying to obscure the fact that we are using some levy money to cover the John Stanford Center.
We mentioned it publicly and we were on the record for it.
So I'm just going to say this, I've been dealing with this thing for eight years.
The public owns a building we haven't paid for.
There was no funding stream ever secured when they built this building.
To Director Blanford's question about what policy changes have we made, we in A&F, after we spent over a year trying to untangle this mess and finally got a good understanding of what the situation was, passed a policy that said you will never again Build property without a dedicated funding stream first.
That you've got to secure the revenue stream to pay for the building.
So we never had a revenue stream.
And so we own the asset, but we haven't paid for it.
It's just like our mortgage at home.
I mean, I'm still paying on my house.
We have to do that for this.
And the only two places we have money, general fund, which is all of our classroom dollars, or capital.
And we get capital by levies.
It's a legitimate capital expense.
If we don't find a way to pay for it in here, it's not a secret.
I mean, believe me, you go back over the board records for the last 10 or 15 years, everybody in town has called the board on the carpet for the decision that got made in 2001 to take this out on a mortgage without a revenue stream.
So nobody is trying to hide anything.
We've got to do this.
If we don't do it here we take it out of our classrooms.
So Director Blanford.
I would only challenge what you said and it's a small challenge that we didn't build this building we acquired this building.
I remember very clearly that because I worked here at the time that the building was already here we moved into it.
Yeah that's fair.
I was never clear on that point I was just very clear on the part that we own it and we don't have a way to pay for it.
I'm very clear on that part.
Director Peasley.
So my question has more to do with transparency.
Is there anywhere in here that it is stated that a certain amount of money is going to be used to pay for the John Stanford center?
So is there a line, where is the line item on the attachment where we have the BTA list?
It is in the B under the B section and it says capital and technology financing obligation principal payments.
Page number please.
Page number 14 on the PDF, 14 out of 41 as I'm going through.
I'm too far down that's why I'm not finding it.
It's after the.
It's under the T?
The B. I was too far down the page even still.
And what's the line item titled?
Capital and technology financing obligations principal payments.
How far down the page is it?
I'm still not seeing it.
It's close to when you get to the total.
BTA IV proposed building projects that says $335 million if you go up four lines $8.1 million capital and technology financing obligations principal payment.
So my document doesn't have page numbers.
So you can look at it on mine I've got it right here and so my recommendation is somebody make a proposal to modify it or not because we need to keep moving forward.
I propose that the document be modified to include how much money is being allocated to cover the payments on the John Stanford Center.
Can I make a friendly amendment to that just to simplify it?
Yes please do.
Why don't we just modify it to say capital and technology financing obligation principal payments including the John Stanford Center.
Just leave it at that.
It's not the whole thing but it's.
I think the amount allocated to the John Stanford Center.
That's fine.
Did anybody catch all that?
Is someone capturing the amended language?
Okay.
Okay.
That's fine.
And then you can work out the specific language.
Okay.
All right.
All right.
So John, do you have any concerns?
So it sounds like you would want to have the number inserted into that line item and I probably want that to be reprinted out so it's completely clear as to what you're voting on and adopting.
We're dealing with a levy of hundreds of millions of dollars and I think we have to get this right.
All right so is someone going to go do that?
All right, so let me ask this question.
Would a five minute break help?
Okay, why don't we take a five minute break and we'll come back in five minutes and that'll give them a few minutes without the entire public watching their every move, all right?
Thank you.
Democracy's a mess.