School Board Meeting June 7th, 2017 Pt. 3

We are still completing our directors comments.

Director Pinkham you haven't had a chance to speak yet I think a couple of the directors want to finish some thoughts.

Director Pinkham would you like to go next?

Pinkham I sure do thank you.

Thank you and good evening.

I apologize for arriving late this school board meeting but I had other duties on the University of Washington campus as they finish up their finals week and I had a final to give myself today.

Again the students one came at like 427 when the final was due at 430. I thought I was going to be able to leave early and get here on time.

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

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

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

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

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

Looking at you know the comments that we heard tonight you know the language immersion or the heritage speakers.

Being exposed to more than one culture or multiple cultures is definitely a way for us to grow and get to know one another.

So we're not living isolated and thinking that this is one way is the right way as we learn from others we enrich ourselves.

And if we can support that yes.

Do we have the financial capability to do it.

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

The people that are leading the classrooms.

That their input, their cultural, their perspectives are valued and we need to appreciate that because As an engineer not myself as an engineer but as an advisor for engineering we know that we need different perspectives.

We don't just need the mathematicians the people that are good at physics.

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

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

And yes there.

I don't want to see our students having to get up so early to go to catch the bus.

And also we have to look at the flip side getting out of school so late to catch the bus.

And those issues when I deal with them I believe that we are going in the right direction.

We are seeing what possibilities are out there and we will take all your comments into consideration so still keep letting us know what your concerns are.

And all of our directors I know our emails have been filled I think I get about 200 emails on bell times and two tiers each day I think I'm getting through my email and boom there it is filled again.

And as I said just keep on letting us know and we'll do our best.

And I think that's why you voted us to be up here to do the best that we can and with your input.

The waitlist.

Hopefully we are going to do I see that I wanted that question that was posed was practice versus policy.

Yes we do have the policy that we should follow.

I think what happens sometimes is just the clarity the transparency of what's actually behind that policy.

meeting during other things that we looked at yes we know that there was some transparency issues and we are going to bring that up so that people know that yes capacity is the issue but there are other issues below that and as we look at the waiting staffing standards and how that impacts what we have to do the decisions we have to make.

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

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

And if there is a way from the list that were shared with us that we can make those waitlist shifts without impacting schools right now and the waiting staffing standards let's see what we can do.

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

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

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

Again the same with Director Harris I can't make that kind of promise right now.

I don't know what's going to happen by the time it comes up here that you know what if there was some emergency where a school has to be bumped down but do I want to see Rainier Beach on that?

Yes.

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

And so there are going to be some tough decisions to make.

Again who gets the funding who doesn't.

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

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

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

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

And the staff around the corners yes we all around the room not just the corners.

I valued inputs as well.

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

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

I wish I did.

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

Unfortunately I will be at the University of Washington native graduation so I won't be able to make there.

But congratulations to the students that will be at the June 9th celebration.

I also want to announce that actually the Urban Native Education Alliance will have their clear sky rites of passage on June 17th which is for rising eighth graders and graduating seniors at Nathan Hale on June 17th from 530 to 830 and they have a special keynote speaker Miss Alaska Alyssa London will be down to talk to our students that attend that.

So for other parents or the students that are rising eighth graders or graduating seniors of indigenous descent if you want to find out more information just please send me an email and we will see if we can get you on the list of people to acknowledge.

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

A personal story I believe you had a birthday this week.

Happy birthday to you.

Happy birthday to you.

Happy birthday to you.

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

Director Patu you wanted to complete your thoughts?

First I wanted to want to say thank you to all the students who came tonight and talked to us about the various needs in our district.

And I'm very pleased with the Rainier Beach student who actually continue to tell us what's going on.

And as they continue on to tell us what's going on.

It's been long overdue.

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

This happened throughout the whole time I was sitting on the board and I've been on the board for eight years.

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

I believe you know that Rainier Beach has been ignored and has not had the opportunity to be remodeled when they came out and did minor remodel they would just slap certain things in the school and that was it.

The floors were different colors.

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

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

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

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

So I hear other board directors says you know we're not going to make that choice but in terms of someone who's actually been watching for many years and watching Rainier Beach get put off the backs My hope and my wish is that Rainier Beach will be renovated with BEX V when it comes around.

And also I would like to Here from staff you know we met a couple of months ago about HCC in terms of the recruitment of kids of color.

And as of now I still have not heard anything.

And I really would like to know what are we doing to recruit more kids of color and how what's the process that we're using in order to see more students of color qualify to be in HCC.

And so that would be something that I really would like to.

to hear and hopefully you can send it to me on a Friday report to let me know exactly where we're at because I still have not heard anything and I really would like to hear something because that has been a question that has been brought up many times.

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

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

Stephen parents you know I hear you loud and clear in terms of what is that you're you know telling us.

And yes we do have a policy that says as long as we have room in our schools that kids can are able to go to those schools.

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

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

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

We had Chinese, we had Japanese, and it's really kind of sad to hear that we are looking at trying to cut those languages.

When it's something that's been with us for many many years so hopefully we can find a way to save those languages and be able to continue on utilizing those languages for our kids.

After all you know Japan and China are actually very, those are very top countries that you know we try to train our kids so they would be able to speak those languages so in terms of if they decided to get a job or you know it's what's happening right now and so I would hate to see Asian you know Japanese and Chinese languages are being cut from our curriculum so hopefully that we can look at that before we actually move forward on it.

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

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

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

And I also wanted to just want to say thank you to all my colleagues here tonight you know it's been great serving with all of you and I always tell people this is one of the best board I've ever sat on.

Is that a smile?

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

We're here because of the kids.

And as long as we're here working for kids I think we can't go nowhere else but up.

So thank you for all the work that you do.

Thank you Betty.

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

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

Can you make it short?

I will make it short.

I hope that I was not misunderstood.

when I said I would not make a guarantee to put Rainier Beach high school renovation as number one on the BEX V list.

Will I fight for the BEX V list and Rainier Beach high school's inclusion?

Yes.

Will I put it as number one?

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

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

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

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

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

I think it belongs there.

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

I thought we were moving it to Tuesday.

Fair enough thank you.

I would have been here on Tuesday.

I find that really concerning especially given the very strong comments that were made at the work session on assessments and it's my hope that leadership and the directors and our venerated principals will talk about that during the summer leadership Institute and will work something out so that children are not penalized for their parents choices.

Further with respect to tardies and attendance when our buses don't make it to school on time how do we calculate that?

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

So I of course support whatever we can do to maintain and even expose more children to do a language however we do know that there is a cost associated with that so I would like to follow up on the grant that was mentioned from the representative from one America and find out if we are availing ourselves of that.

I won't repeat all the recognitions that we had earlier today in detail, I just want to quickly say thank you to Gail Morris, to our athletes, congratulations to our bi-literate students and to the Ballard robotics team.

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

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

You can travel for 50 cents a ride.

And so I encourage everybody to look into that so our students can get around town during the summer months easily and at this point I actually think public transportation is probably more efficient than individual cars because of all the construction that's going on.

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

I mean it did have one improvement with its theater facilities in the past but I believe it definitely should be on BEX V. Where it should be on the list I don't know but I think we do have a situation where If we are looking just at enrollment numbers that might not dictate this exactly however I do believe that when we invest in our buildings then that does attract our students, it does attract our families, if you build it they will come and I think we are going to have to make that leap with Rainier Beach.

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

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

It's such a minimal amount all told it's only about $20,000.

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

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

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

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

We don't turn any children away.

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

I enjoyed the board retreat we had recently I wish more members of the public would come to our retreats maybe we need to advertise them more.

We had some really great presentations one of them was on identity safety from Dr. Freiberg and she talked specifically to the lens of what it's like to be in a Native American student but in broader scope of how we can be more understanding of different cultures and more attuned to different cultures and understand how we can reach students And this would be primarily within our schools for our teachers but also as administrators we need to understand this.

And then that complimented quite well the afternoon presentation which was on the highly capable program but very specifically it was on how to increase diversity in the program.

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

They would have found it very interesting.

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

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

What is important to remember is why these students need it, that it is a need, it is an intervention, and Austina Delabonte did talk about this, Delabonte talked about this very clearly about how it is an intervention almost like a special need.

And so her presentation we will be able to put that up online for people to see and in the meantime her presentation was based on an article she wrote called peeling the onion.

equity and high cap that she posted on the way tag site which is the Washington Association of educators of talented and gifted.

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

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

Let's see, I was fortunate to attend the scholarship awards for the school boards trustee scholarship committee and it's always a wonderful event because we have students from every high school and these are students who have experienced some sort of challenge and they have overcome that and they are so inspirational and they are so grateful and this year we had the counselors there as well and that made a huge difference.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Every classroom should be engaging.

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

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

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

As far as the waitlist you know I agree if we have practices that don't match our policies and protocol then we have a problem.

We have a disconnect and we are seeing that play out and I think this year we have people who are much more in tuned with how things are or are not working.

We also have the challenge of a growing district and not enough space for all of our students And so I continue to ask staff to find solutions and if there are swaps that can be made that were laid out by one of the speakers and let's take a look at that.

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

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

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

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

So there are some practical considerations.

I'm aware of that but I think we do have to do things differently.

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

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

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

It was a fantastic show and I am biased.

I had a student who was in the play.

So just a shout out.

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

All right so thank you all very much and we will now proceed to the action portion of our agenda.

Oh not at all you jog my memory and I will pass on the compliment to the students.

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

All right, let's see.

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

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

Pinkham I second the motion.

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

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

We wanted other directors to see it?

It was May 4th that this came through and we had questions about the level of community engagement and why we did a survey.

And those were I believe very well answered in introduction when we had the SEA representative come in and talk about the needs based bargaining all last year.

Thank you for that reminder.

Are there any questions or comments about this item?

Director Geary.

I did see the emails on this issue in terms of families once again feeling frustrated that their input wasn't ultimately the determining factor.

And I think it's worth stating once again that this is the issue again of not of putting the early release on the Wednesday correct?

And that If we are going to spend our time and listen to everybody about the need to create more time for collaboration, and more time for professional development in our teachers, which we have been told over and over again would get us closer to what is held out as the be all end all of models which is the Finland education model.

That we with our limited dollars and our limited resources and limited time need to make sure that we are maximizing the outcome of that benefit to our teachers.

And that according to our teachers They would maximize their benefit, we would get most bang for our buck and our time and our investment in them if they did that on Wednesday and then were able to return to the classroom the next day with this newly gained information and put it to work on behalf of our kids.

And it's our hope that that will then elevate their practices and elevate the experience of our kids and I think from my perspective ultimately that's what we are here for and that is a priority.

Director Harris.

I would point out on that same vein the rich discussion we had in intro, I feel confident that we did learn lessons and that we will move forward in a more transparent way including acknowledging the part that our labor partners play.

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

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

Director Peters Any other questions or comments about this item?

Director Pinkham.

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

Or is that in the works right now?

I know one of my community meetings and I acknowledge that some of the input is particularly about Nathan Hale because right now they have late start Tuesdays and one of their concerns was with this now early release on Wednesdays would they be able to stick with petition to ask we still have that late start on Tuesdays.

And if I can just have the response so we can have a record I got the response via email.

But if you can share that I'd appreciate it.

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

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

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

Are there any other questions or comments about this item?

Ms. Shek the roll call please.

Director Blanford aye Director Burke aye Director Geary aye, Director Harris aye, Director Patu aye, Director Pinkham aye, Director Peters aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

Thank you.

Item 2 accepting transportation and crossing grants from the City of Seattle.

I move that the Seattle school board authorizes superintendent to accept two grants from the city of Seattle if approved by the city on or before June 15 for the 2017 18 school year.

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

I further move that the superintendent be authorized to take any necessary steps.

Actions to implement the grants including minor modifications to the transportation service standards.

Pinkham I second the motion.

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

That would be you Leslie.

My apologies.

May 11 for approval.

All right are there any changes since introduction?

There are.

Pegi McEvoy assistant superintendent for operations.

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

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

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

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

Director Peters Are there any questions or comments?

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

Ask me that one more time?

Have there been some additional conversations that have taken place?

My understanding is the City Council will take action on this sometime next week?

Yes, the City Council has moved it directly for a full Council vote on Monday, June 12.

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

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

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

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

those students are no longer homeless so we no longer provided those sites so that actually caused a reduction in the allocation that the state was offering us.

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

That is something that we are working with the state legislature on.

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

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

So if I can follow up.

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

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

Obviously we don't want to have more changes for our families so if we move to a two-tier we want to be able to stay with a two-tier.

So there are two options.

One we make sure that the state fully funds us, obviously that's not necessarily in our control.

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

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

if I can ask one more question.

So as a board member who has this issue in front of us and we have to take a vote on it, what assurance do we have that we are not putting an additional burden onto our general fund budget which my understanding is it's going to be stretched pretty severely next year?

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

Berge assistant superintendent for business and finance we cannot provide you that assurance at this time.

There could still be a gap in the out years and while we will do our best to look for other funding sources at this point we don't know that those would materialize or that McCleary would be funded in a way that would make us whole.

Peters Any other questions or comments about this item?

Director Burke and then Director Geary.

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

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

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

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

So here is what we have researched and found out.

It really does depend on the sport.

Of the sports that are offered at high schools the athletic department moved competitions and practice later for most sports and the school board authorized additional funds to hire charter buses during the school year.

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

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

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

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

And then finally five sports had athletes that missed more class time this year.

And that was cross-country, golf, gymnastics, swimming and track and field.

And we are continuing to try to mitigate that.

We've got some strategies.

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

Director Geary.

This is clearly an important issue for a lot of our families as we are seeing in our email traffic so I wanted to take some time to talk about how I have been thinking about it.

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

And I think that the priorities that I give are I look at the health and safety because if we have to keep our kids safe I look at the academic impact because that is our job as a school district.

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

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

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

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

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

And it also makes me worry about the kids in the third tier because then they start being out of sync.

When you have little kids that are out of sync traveling around at times of the day when other people aren't expecting them to that's when things can go awry.

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

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

We are finding that kids are being dropped off at playgrounds way too early unsupervised Again that's a safety issue but that's being driven by family economics and the inability to otherwise provide for their kids.

And then our extracurriculars.

Well yes we've seen the negative impact to athletes.

I think we've also been hearing and we don't think about the elementary school kids but it makes it very difficult if our kids aren't getting out until 4 in the afternoon for the parents to find enrichments for them.

If they can't be guaranteed to get their kids there until 430 by that point.

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

And so it's not just our adolescents that are impacted though we do have a really another impact than on the other end in terms of our elementary kids.

I think some of these things are so important that we as a school district need to just determined that a two-tier system is the right, safest, most academically strong way to go for our families.

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

I hope that the City Council understands that as a district this has been something that we have been working on for a really long time.

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

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

Peters Any other questions or comments?

Director Pinkham.

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

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

But right now to me there sounds like still a lot of questions to be answered that we're not sure.

Yes we can't guarantee we'll have it in our budget because we're not sure about McCleary or other things or even if the city will approve this one time funding and then still further studies to do on the impact for some of the schools, the athletics.

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

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

And I know we've got this timeline that we have to do this by a certain timeline but if we don't have the funding yet.

And we're not sure how if we do get the funding are we going to be able to sustain it for future years.

That's my difficulty right now with this.

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

Why are these two grants combined on one bar?

Originally they were the ask to the city and so they were looking at maybe using the same funding source from the city so it was combined in that way.

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

Yes.

Director Harris.

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

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

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

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

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

I will be voting yes.

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

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

I've been there done that stinks when you have to rearrange your whole life or you have kids at several different schools and you're trying to pay the mortgage.

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

Absolutely not discounting that.

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

And I think we can do that.

Thank you very much Pegi for your tenacity.

This has been a heavy lift and hugely appreciate it and your team.

Thank you very much.

I'll let the team know.

Director Burke.

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

So as we look at this and we say this is really important and that a two tier is the best system.

For the long term.

And then we look forward at some of the other things we've got going on.

Do you anticipate that some of those other work streams like 24 credits.

Could impact this where our high school schedules.

Or or would that all be working within the existing structure.

As we look at that in the next year or two.

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

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

So it of course all depends on which schedule we decide to implement for the 18-19 school year but we do not anticipate needing to increase the length of any of the high schools school day.

Director Blanford.

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

I voted against it.

And I voted against it for many of the reasons that Director Geary shared that at the time we were going through a three tier system.

And those parents and families who were in that third tier for numerous reasons articulated strongly with very stark language why they felt it was wrong and did a disservice for their kids to, for the entire city to hear the benefits of the brain science and the research around what benefits accrued to students as a result of this but their kids did not get to participate.

That that was one issue that I was uncomfortable with.

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

And we've seen you know as a result of kids that don't have are not supervised in critical hours and as a former executive director of a nonprofit organization I know that unsupervised kids during hours where their parents aren't home is a recipe for bad outcomes to happen.

So I was very sensitive to that notion.

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

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

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

I remember when we said when we tasked Ms. McEvoy with trying to find $2.3 million thinking yeah that's not going to happen but lo and behold the city has come to our rescue.

But my primary concern now has to do with what happens if we are not able to get future funding for the shift to bell times.

Primarily because as I tried to state earlier That will be a $2.3 million recurring hit on our budget in perpetuity and is my understanding of our future budget situation is next year is going to be pretty significantly challenged and so I have huge concerns about taking on another expense that we don't have funding guaranteed for.

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

But We continue to just say well, we'll just go ahead and hope for the best but at some point We don't have the ability to balance our budgets if we continue to say that and I think this is a case With a number of 2.3 million dollars.

It's pretty significant Which causes me pause and leads me unfortunately to vote in opposition to this motion Director Geary

I appreciate what Director Blanford is saying.

From the perspective of the families that I hear from in my district since my district disproportionately has the third tier, they will come back and ask that we rotate that third tier.

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

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

That would be disruptive.

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

I think this is one of those times.

That there is education And around education there are a lot of other civic obligations.

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

There is transportation.

There is food security.

There is safety and policing.

And sometimes we're going to have to go to our partners and just insist that they come and be partners with us for the families of our 54000 students.

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

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

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

So I'd like to weigh in at this point.

In terms of the history isn't it true that we once had as many as like 23 different start times for our schools.

26 26. OK.

So then we simplified it down to three.

So we're making progress.

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

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

And so it has imposed a hardship on our families.

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

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

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

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

Our families bore the costs of that choice.

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

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

Just two.

Make it simple.

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

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

We were having three tiers no matter what.

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

So I think we are getting some things mixed up together.

I just want to clarify that.

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

That's correct.

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

No the 20 minutes is something that was negotiated in our collective bargaining agreement.

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

But that is going to happen no matter what.

Whether we have two tiers or three tiers or if we even God forbid went back to 23 start times or 26. So I think one of the issues with the city is where they want to find the source of the funding for this and the question has been should it come out of the family and education levy funds.

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

Is that correct?

That is my recollection of the amount.

The city budget is developed on a different cycle than we are and so in fact although that money was collected and we thought it might be a potential to actually fund bell times, what we found is that the city had already allocated and budgeted all that money for this year.

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

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

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

In terms of how much the city, the district will be reimbursed, I mean for the 2.3 million we've been told that the state will reimburse our transportation costs at 90%.

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

So what do we know about what the reimbursement would be?

Or do we know at all?

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

I do know maybe 90% is what the rest of the state gets reimbursed.

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

I have not heard that number before.

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

I don't believe I did.

No I don't believe so.

I don't recall.

What I heard was that it has changed the state's algorithm or formula has changed and now.

Let me restate this the state's formula has not changed in a way that impacts this.

So what's changed is the state.

It's our practice.

So the state's funding formula pays you based on the number of students, so riders, and the number of destinations.

Right?

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

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

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

That's not the case under current projections.

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

It's not a myth.

They're fully funding the formula.

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

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

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

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

But going to two tiers goes beyond that.

And so there's going to be a gap.

Okay and so you say in that gap is 2.3 million every year?

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

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

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

And the out years.

In terms of the… Bergen Can I add one thing?

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

There's always more to be borne by us at the district level and so that's also factoring in for us.

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

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

Let me say it that way.

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

But what I do know is that like I said earlier that the current system right now has been a hardship for families and I remember when we passed the transportation standards either last year or the year before I put in an amendment to change the three tier start time five minutes earlier.

That was all we could possibly do.

And you know splitting it a bit of a difference there.

And that was something but it's just not enough.

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

Do we trade it off with others?

And what does that cost look like?

And are there some other costs that we are not thinking of when we have the three tiers?

You know I still feel compelled to support this.

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

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

Director Pinkham.

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

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

So destinations are the number of schools or programs that we deliver students to so by virtue of adding more schools we are increasing our number of destinations.

We are not allowed to provide transportation for students that live closer than a mile to a school so we can't go down to a half mile unless there is particular safety issues and we get a waiver essentially from the state.

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

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

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

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

Pinkham So it's the state that sets the one-mile?

Never mind.

Blanking right now.

Director Burke.

Building on what Director Pinkham just asked our individual skill center sites.

Do those represent individual destinations by reinforcing our skill center programs.

Does that essentially increase our reimbursement rate for transportation.

Not if they're at a school.

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

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

That's correct.

That's sort of our two between school programs.

And we have a lot of that in the district.

Are there any other questions or comments?

Director Geary did you have something?

Director Blanford.

I guess this question is for, this is a finance question.

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

That's possible.

I want to emphasize it could be less.

It could be less than that.

Is it going to be zero.

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

But and it could be all the way up to 2.3.

Thank you.

How much what percentage does the state currently reimburse us with our three tiers.

Yeah.

So I have, 16-17 was a little bit more than 95%?

Okay.

So we have been usually 98 to 100% this year, you are thinking more 96-97%?

I think our latest projections for 16-17 so we think we right now have a gap of about $700,000 that we are short $700,000 so whatever the math is on that.

I don't have it in my head.

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

Not under the formula aspect.

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

Director Burke.

the finance part of this is a big challenge especially because it is an unknown what happens with McCleary, what happens with the formula, what happens with our own demographics and sites and students and enrollment.

So recognizing that historically that has been reimbursed at a higher level, slightly higher level than just the recent past, and so we are looking at potentially an ongoing expense, or an ongoing imbalance between our reimbursement and our revenue.

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

If we are betting on that that is probably not Burke not the best approach.

And so I'm hearing a commitment from Pegi and her team to continue looking at alternate revenue to make up the difference but also looking at cost reductions and you know our per student cost on Metro is slightly lower than our per student cost on yellow buses and school buses and so because we are only a few percent off that working those things over the next few years we can continue to try to drive that deficit to as small as possible is what I'm hearing.

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

only that this is a profoundly difficult vote and we should probably take the conversation here and take the video snippet and if it all turns into a handbasket next year we can look at ourselves.

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

I believe that the brainpower in this building together with our community can make this work.

And sometimes you've got to stretch.

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

Not at all.

It makes me sick to my stomach.

No question about it.

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

Yeah I do.

Voting yes.

And I'll add to that.

you can hear me?

Okay and there is some feedback happening tonight I apologize.

I appreciate the resourcefulness that has come from Pegi and her department on this And my understanding is the majority of the city Council supports this the idea of two tiers.

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

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

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

It's just a matter of the funding.

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

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

And so I will be voting yes on this tonight.

Director Patu.

So this is a very interesting conversation.

This is something that we've worked...

This is something that we've actually...

I guess it went off.

I'm loud anyway.

You're back on.

this is actually something that we've worked on for a while.

And you know nothing is ever perfect.

But you know in order for us to know what's whether it's going to work or not work we've got to push forward on it.

And I believe that we made the right choice.

We went from three to two and we realize that a lot of our communities and parents support this.

And I think you know we finally found something that we think is going to work for our district.

The money yes 2.3 is a lot of money but I feel very confident that the city council will actually look at this and realize that you know what this is for all our kids in Seattle.

And unless we move this forward it's not going to happen and you know we've actually I think this year has been a great year for us building relationships with the city and them helping us especially at this time where we don't have any money.

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

And this is for our kids.

You know if it's going to work for our kids and I said let's move forward and have faith in ourselves and say this is something that's right for all the kids and move forward.

Money will come.

So I vote yes.

Are there any other questions or comments on this item?

Director Pinkham?

Pinkham We are not going to go home tonight.

Again I just want to say I fully support that we do go to this two-tiered bus system because it's best for our students and echoing Director Harris here that she is confident that we will find a way.

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

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

This is a tough decision to make.

And having faith in where we are going to go and where we are going to find that money and placing the priorities.

So right now I think we are saying priority is our students get into school at a safe time and seeing that you know they're taken care of.

And that yes we're not burdening our parents that I have to with this three tier system with the additional costs you know putting that on them as well.

But you know there's other things that I've been kind of going through in mind too when we hear about the they hate Seattle.

You know what the Seattle school district does and what they can do that we're not the ideal for the Washington state when they look at giving out money because of the situation that we have with their big city and then Is this eventually where the state is going to say oh well we are going to restrict transportation for everyone because look what Seattle was able to do.

While other cities can't necessarily do this.

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

So I think we have to feel fortunate where we are at here.

And get that message to the legislature, get to Olympia and let them know you've got to fix what's going on now.

You are putting the school districts, the communities at odds with one another where what is best for our students but then what do we have to sacrifice to get there to do that?

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

Peters Any other questions or comments?

All right let's check the roll call please.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

No.

Director Burke.

Aye.

This motion has passed by a vote.

Hold on a second.

Director Peters.

Aye.

My apologies.

This vote has passed.

This motion has passed by a vote of 6 to 1.

Thank you.

All right thank you everybody for your careful thought on that matter.

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

I move that the board authorize the superintendent to accept the grant funds totaling $16,905,221 from the city of Seattle's Family and education levy funded programs with the city of Seattle Department of Education and early learning for the family support worker elementary middle and high school innovation middle school linkage and school nurses.

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

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

And I second the motion.

Have there been any changes since introduction?

No there have been no changes.

Are there any questions or comments about this item?

Peters if you have nothing to add then we will go to Ms. Shek.

Roll call please.

Director Pinkham aye Director Patu aye Director Harris aye Director Geary Director Burke aye.

Director Blanford aye.

Director Peters aye.

This motion is passed unanimously.

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

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute contracts with SHI International Corp in the amount of $250,000 for the purchase of Questica licensing and with Questica Inc in the amount of $695,050 for the purchase of professional services hosting maintenance and support services in the form of the draft agreements dated May 19 excuse me May 29. 2017 and attached to the school board action report with any minor deletions additions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent to take any necessary actions to implement the contract.

Pinkham I second the motion.

Harris This came before A&F April 18 for consideration.

After the bar was introduced last month we have finalized negotiations with the vendor resulting in the amount of professional services being increased and the other significant change in the bar, not significant change but the other change in the bar was separating out that there will be additional implementation costs for phase two once that scope of work has been determined.

Does that second change have any significant does it make any significant difference to how this contract will be?

It will be for more money it won't make any significant change in the contract itself.

So we will have most of the work done, there will be some part of phase 2 as yet we have not been able to develop that scope of work.

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

Peters will this cost cover both phase 1 and phase 2?

This is phase one cost.

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

Total project budget for this work is $2.6 million.

Director Harris.

Could you give us a short paragraph of what this is?

Questica for the record.

We are talking in code here.

I know we talked about it at intro.

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

That's the vendor for the accounting software.

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

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

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

Harris accuracy and why is this a good thing?

Transparency accuracy in the old system is Not doing so well.

And do we save human capital time as well?

Yes we will save human capital time as well.

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

Director Blanford.

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

Bergen Correct.

For example position control.

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

That's a lot of staff time.

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

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

Oh.

Director Pinkham.

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

What's.

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

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

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

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

I believe that that kind of falls under that category.

It's pretty well said there could maybe, I don't know, I believe it's mostly said but there could be a slight modification somewhere along the way.

Not to price but to other terms and conditions.

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

It would be an immaterial change at this point.

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

Burke.

Director Geary, aye.

Director Blanford, aye.

Director Harris, aye.

Director Patu, aye.

Director Pinkham, aye.

Director Peters, aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

Item number five BEX IV and BTA for approval of the site specific educational specifications for the modernization at Lincoln high school project.

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

Director Pinkham I second the motion.

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

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

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

Revisions to this document from introduction include some adjacency bubble diagrams that show how the classrooms are located at Lincoln high school based upon Director Burke's request at introduction.

So we postponed.

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

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

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

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

So, open it up to your questions.

Director Patu.

That's actually not a question but I would like to say that it's really appalling for me to actually to have been waiting for many years for Rainier Beach to be remodeled and here I see nothing against remodeling Lincoln.

And here Lincoln is going to be remodeling you know sometime this year.

And for me that's you know I have to pause when I see this because I just feel like it's so unfair.

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

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

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

So there's a couple of things that are in there.

that the variance has helped bring up and I just wanted to understand what is the flexibility around that.

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

But there are some other things like teacher planning space where we are below and we are using flex space classrooms.

understanding that this is sort of a flexible plan, how much… implementation flexibility, is there like, can that large group conference room be a classroom?

Or is it?

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

It could definitely be used for staff planning area.

So there is flexibility.

One of the directions that you know we have given to, gave to the city architects at the outset of this project, and they did participate in the development of high school ed specs from a districtwide perspective is to make sure that our facilities are nimble.

And that they can be reconfigured for other uses that they need.

And they have done that in their configurations of sheer walls, they've identified to the design team five-year walls, 10-year walls, and then long-term walls where we have sheer bracings for seismic support.

And so very cognizant of that.

Director Burke.

Thank you.

One of the points was brought up to me by some constituents were that the CTE.

space doesn't have adjacency with some of the learning areas and possibly locating that more proximately to the maker space or some of those areas might get more synergy.

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

Best We made a recent investment in the CTE space in the southeast wing of Lincoln high school for a medical program.

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

Burke I've got a couple other community concerns that I think the Ed spec describes it well around the sports I think the way it's cited that the program room counts support space and infrastructure well below requirements.

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

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

It's a physical limitation that we haven't been able to overcome and so to put out a request that we to be more explicit and proactive on what that's going to look like and help community visualize that.

And then the last question relates to city infrastructure.

Which isn't particularly, I didn't see particularly covered in this document.

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

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

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

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

I don't know the level of that level of detail.

We're doing the typical connections, making it to the existing sewer line, but there's nothing beyond that.

No major sewer improvements downstream from the school itself.

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

We do.

We have had our guidance meeting with both SPU and SDOT to review that with them and we are moving forward.

We have been approved by the 60% student street improvement plan and we are moving to the 90%.

So it has been reviewed.

Thank you.

Director Blanford.

To the point that was made before Director Burke spoke I'm wondering is the primary reason that Lincoln is on the list to be renovated, does it have to do with the capacity challenges that we are facing currently?

Best and those capacity challenges are at Ballard high school, Roosevelt high school, and then also at Garfield high school.

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

some relief to Garfield.

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

So yeah.

I have questions about two areas of the ed specs.

I know this building quite well.

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

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

What are the plans?

Yes, the plan is to keep the existing auditorium.

We will be making some minor improvements, Director Peters, so that we do not trigger City of Seattle's substantial alterations requirements.

If we trigger those requirements, we will need to make a multi-million dollar investment into the east buildings.

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

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

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

the use of the space.

And those are the types of improvements we are talking about.

Both acoustic and stage lighting.

Fantastic.

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

How much capacity are you adding to the dining space?

Because right now it's wholly inadequate.

Best the dining areas being totally renovated.

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

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

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

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

Is the kitchen going to be a functioning kitchen?

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

The kitchen will be a functioning full service kitchen.

OK.

And the dining commons area has a nice connection to the outdoors so you could eat outdoors on a sunny day like we had experienced today.

And then at the two levels are connected to one another so it will actually be a very exciting space.

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

All right thank you.

Director Pinkham.

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

Would that have possibly helped that as well given that Director Patu's concern that hey you know here we've been asking Rainier Beach being on some renovation now new high schools going in and they are getting renovation in the meantime it feels like okay what's happening to Rainier Beach?

Do we have to wait for the next levy, the next levy?

To help out you know was that considered about how we can use maybe some money to help renovate Rainier Beach to maybe attract more students to alleviate capacity at Garfield or other schools?

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

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

That is a question that we are looking at from the high school boundary task force is can Rainier Beach provide some relief to those schools, specifically Garfield.

But I don't have an answer today.

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

And I know that we're missing a high school in that area with the closure of Queen Anne so it is something that we need.

I just wonder what else has been thought of.

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

Do you have any update on that?

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

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

It's a requirement of their master use permit.

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

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

Pinkham So you are looking at ways to maybe that the school to school can use that lot more?

Best Yes.

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

Thank you.

Harris I'll bite.

How many parking places are we talking about?

Best 49.

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

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

No that would not trump our needs.

So when do we look at that?

And when do we pull the plug on them if we do?

So we conducted a transportation study and a parking study as part of our state environmental protection act requirements, SEPA requirements.

That was looked at and it was not deemed that we would need that parking lot in order to meet our school demands.

And that was upheld by the hearing examiner as well.

It was challenged and upheld.

I have a follow up question then.

What sort of community engagement did we do with the neighbors?

Because we truly need to be a good neighbor.

Yeah.

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

Mr. Best is correct we've had a number of community meetings we also had a representative from the Wongford community center part of the school design advisory team so they voiced concerns during that time so we've had outreach to discuss the traffic concerns.

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

Thank you.

Director Burke.

since my colleague so kindly opened Pandora's box on parking I know that one of the concepts that I've heard multiple people ask me about is the idea of putting subsurface parking and putting field space on top of it.

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

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

Best I can tell you that an underground parking stall one underground parking stall has a cost of between 50 and 75 thousand dollars.

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

Costs looked at for Lincoln are between $10-$15 million for underground parking.

Thank you for that.

That was something that was looked at.

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

I don't see any more so with that Ms. Shek the roll call please.

Director Blanford aye Director Geary aye Director Burke aye Director Harris aye Director Patu no Director Pinkham no Director Peters.

Aye.

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

All right so we are on to our final action item of the evening.

BTA IV award contract K5093 for relocation and setup of portable classrooms at multiple school sites.

I move that school board authorize the superintendent to execute contract number K5093.

with King County Directors Association KCDA for relocation and setup of portable classrooms and multiple school sites in the contract scheduled value amount of $391,931.64.

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

Immediate action is in the best interest of the district.

Pinkham I second the motion.

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

They will relocate 15 portables in the amount of $391,931.64 and if you look in the agreement At attachment A it tells you where those portables are going to be relocated to.

They will be coming from different school sites including McGilvra Elementary as we build a lunchroom there.

They will also be coming from Boren and Schmitz Park.

And then Washington middle school as well.

Can you speak to the bid climate that resulted in zero bids coming in?

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

And so we received no bids.

That was a surprise to us.

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

And we had anticipated getting two bids on this project.

So that was a surprise.

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

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

Director Burke.

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

This shows four portables going into Garfield high school.

which I believe the original estimate was that we needed eight but we didn't have space for any.

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

So my question is not specifically what drives this but Is this is this locking in our student assignment and waitlist and capacity with this decision?

It wouldn't be locking in no this would be providing flexibility to meet those Needs director Burke, but it would not be locking in the waitlist decisions.

So for example if if there were a Compelling reason to instead place two at Garfield and four at Ingram.

Is that still viable within this structure?

We could implement that by a change order.

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

Peters

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

That if Ingram is willing to take more folks then there might not be as many folks at Garfield next year and at Roosevelt.

Both of which are set up for four portables each.

And they're already extraordinarily cramped spaces is that correct?

Best correct.

And I can say that I respond to.

I provide seats, enrollment planning identifies student counts.

I do not identify student counts.

Okay but y'all work really closely together and you brainstorm so that one isn't leading the other in terms of this timing crazy that we are in.

Is that correct?

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

We make no decisions on that.

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

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

How it works.

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

For those students.

Director Harris.

Thank you.

So along those same lines, so we have been told we need to wait until June 16 to find out some staffing decisions and some enrollment decisions that will impact waitlist.

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

It is dependent on the June 16 data.

We need to get a contract in place with William KCDA and William Scotsman and then if we have to shift portables we do that by change order.

Director Peters or we will not have classrooms ready by the start of school.

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

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

So that's what you need to do.

Correct.

Based on what enrollment planning has indicated.

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

Is that correct?

But that's not in your department.

That's not in my department.

Okay correct.

Because I'm looking at these numbers and I already know that our Ballard, our high schools Ballard, Roosevelt and Garfield are already extremely full.

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

I mean it's really big.

So the idea of adding two more classrooms to Ballard, four more to Garfield, I mean this is baffling to me. and where we would put these.

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

JoLynn did you want to speak to this?

Thank you.

Assistant superintendent for business and finance Joel Emberge.

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

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

Does that help clarify?

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

So let me just say this.

As far as I know we have a plan for how many portables we're planning on moving on each site.

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

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

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

Correct it's change orders.

We will make one final adjustment for this and Director Peters historically realized I've only been here three years it's less than 10% of these portables will move so with 16 we are talking maybe max two portables that will shift.

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

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

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

What kind of impact is that going to have?

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

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

Director Patu.

My curiosity is that if we are so overpopulated in these schools why do we continue to put kids there?

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

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

I mean this is their first choice.

It's their home school.

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

I'm not the waitlist expert.

Director Harris I apologize.

I can't really speak to waitlist.

I know that we have waitlist.

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

I'm not the person who identifies.

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

However.

This makes no sense in terms of a planning continuum to me.

And it feels not right.

Director Burke.

I was wondering if you could.

I'm just scanning through it and I'm looking for a schedule.

Does the document here.

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

I do know that we are supposed to have this effort complete by the end of August.

Director Burke.

So I don't see it and I actually see a reference in… in the initial contract if you look at paragraph 2.2 it says see attachment A and then when you go to attachment A you do not see the schedule.

And it could be that those are the conversations that will occur after we get the contract signed so they know where we are in their queue.

So that we can get the schedule identified.

I guess I'm feeling several kinds of awkward around this.

Recognizing that there's a sense of urgency.

Which is the difficult part for me.

But we have uncertainty.

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

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

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

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

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

So I just want to be clear about consequences.

And I appreciate that.

Were there that level of urgency.

It would have been great to have had this discussion previously.

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

That's one half of this right.

Correct.

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

Washington McGilvra.

So that has to happen no matter what.

Is that correct?

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

No I'm seeing no from Associate Superintendent Best.

Best No Hamilton we will be opening Will Pacific and Menial School.

We have issues really with portables at Hamilton last year that they would only be placed there for one year.

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

So is this half of the process something that is certain?

That we certainly are going to have to move these portables from these current locations?

Is that correct?

Best We have to move them from McGilvra.

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

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

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

and this is a normal part of our business.

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

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

Best No we will be in conversations with KCDA making sure they have this contract getting our place in line so that we can get these portables moved and then we may have to adjust that based upon what we learn on June 16. But there is a large work effort that will start tomorrow and getting a purchase order cut for KCDA and getting our place in line and having conversations with William Scotsman as to where the portables are coming from and where they are going to.

So if the conversation starts to move new information on the 16th will that constitute a change order?

If we have to give them different directions on where these portables go next week?

It might constitute a change it would constitute a change order yes to answer your question it may not be a financial change order just a change of this from this location to this location.

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

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

It may not.

May not but it might.

It might.

All right.

Thank you Dr. Nyland please.

So I think, am I on?

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

We've heard the request to move the waitlist.

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

But there is no room at Lincoln, I'm sorry at Ingram unless we put portables at Ingram.

So two issues I think that we are talking about.

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

I assume that the Garfield and Ballard pieces also and or Ingram also have permitting requirements and power and whatever utilities go portables so I think that's if I'm right and if that's part of the consternation if the enrollment confirms on the 16th what we think we know today could those portables be moved from I guess instead of moving them to Garfield and Ballard could they be moved to Ingram or are there other considerations that means that that ship could get there in time?

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

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

They understand the problem.

So of trying to address student capacity.

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

We do not have three weeks.

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

Is that going to be a rationale for not moving waitlist?

To Ingram?

Yes.

That would not be a rationale.

Okay so we are already in discussions with the city building use permit folks to get Frankly as many portables as we can cram in there until we get our 500 seat addition.

Are we in those kind of discussions?

On a fast track?

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

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

at Ingram.

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

Harris Are they fast-track conversations?

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

Best No that will not be an issue.

Harris Thank you.

Director Pinkham I appreciate the conversation we are having here and I'm just curious North Beach elementary school one portable moving for $100,000 whereas Roosevelt getting four for 97. Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham.

Pinkham So distance matters.

Director Pinkham Distance matters and plus the school that it was at before that is probably equipped for an elementary school going to another elementary school.

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

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

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

Not what the wait lists are saying.

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

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

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

Director Pinkham.

But they give me a number that says we need to provide this many seats at this school, we sit down with our capacity planning group and look at how we are providing, how the building principals utilize the school and how we provide those seats.

I think what Director Harris is trying to say is who is waging what?

Are we looking at the demand that's at the school or being asked or is it trying to build the capacity?

So that's been kind of the confusion.

We are responding to the demand.

That's been identified for us.

I am certainly not knowledgeable about all of this.

I am 99% sure that we are responding to the enrollment projections for the neighborhood school.

Not to the waitlist.

I think irregardless of the waitlist irregardless of the kids on the waitlist who want to leave Ballard it's my understanding they still need these portables just for the attendance area kids that still would be there.

True but the list that you gave us shows that you've got Ballard kids that want to go to Ingram which I guess we would be approving the waitlist one way we wouldn't be approving anybody that wanted to go from Ingram to Ballard.

I think it might work, the problem with all of this is it could work for one year and I've usually been in districts where we've done this and after three or four years everything is just so screwed up because everybody has gone every different place and you no longer have.

Good counts.

good counts your enrollment projections are harder to make your anyway I mean it could happen one year it can't happen the next year and that you can't if you're going to put four portables on Ingram to solve the problem at Garfield and Ballard at Roosevelt you can't do that for another year so another year from now you'd be saying all right now we have to go back to Garfield.

Garfield, Ballard, and Roosevelt to make those spaces.

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

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

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

Peters When does Lincoln go online again?

What year?

and the 500 seats at Ingram.

Okay so we will have some relief then but we've got to figure out between now and then what we are doing.

All right and then in terms of distance matters as far as how these portables are moved it's unfortunate that we are going from McGill over to North Beach you can't find a more distant difficult bisection of this city

from Schmitz Park.

I actually think that's more direct.

Schmitz Park might be easier.

Best.

These portables that were taking off the McGilvra site were taking off because it's where we want to locate the new lunchroom for McGilvra.

And there was really it was the only option so we have to move these portables off that site.

Peters Right I understand the moving off but the fact that those are the ones that were chosen for North Beach does it have to be elementary to elementary?

Best These are well situated for an elementary

Okay because I mean Hamilton's a lot closer to North Beach but maybe the Hamilton one is going to Ballard I don't know.

Okay but did somebody figure out what was the shortest distance and was that part of the calculation to keep the cost low?

Correct.

Okay so there was some thought that went into that okay good.

Is it possible to put some kind of language in here that says or in the agreement that you have with this contractor that some things are going to be determined a week from now?

So that you are not locked into something that has to be changed next week with potential costs associated with potential change orders?

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

So it's not because we recognize that some things may shift.

And it will you know at the close of open enrollment it will shift again.

So.

And so what it would be would be a change order to the contract.

To this contract.

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

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

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

That has to happen no matter what.

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

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

Correct.

Director Harris.

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

The waitlist issue has caused a huge trust break.

And then we add this on to it.

I and I frankly am beyond uncomfortable trying to figure out this what do you call it a hairball?

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

I would vote for this but I really am insistent on that because the waitlist issue has been anything but transparent.

And it is extraordinarily troubling to me as a board member.

It is extraordinarily troubling to our constituents.

Director Burke as associate superintendent Berge comes to talk to us.

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

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

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

Okay so staff in enrollment planning and budget are working back and forth to get those numbers for you on the waitlist because they are as large a concern to us as they are to you.

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

Okay so the list next week will show all the moves and what it will do to staffing and everything else.

For everything else for a school that has capacity.

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

Ballard, Garfield, and Roosevelt.

All the other waitlists will be on the list.

As an option.

Because we've heard you.

Yeah.

I guess I would.

I appreciate that.

I guess what the question still holds is that you know the actual process to do that recognizing that this is I don't want to put this into a reapproval cycle.

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

But it's really important to me if we're going to approve this as an intro action item.

that we have dates certain that the board will be briefed and have an opportunity to dialogue on what those portable assignments will be.

So we understand the theory of action and that we are all on board and not in a contentious fashion about it.

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

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

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

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

Yeah they will be provided that.

I think what they were outlining is that there is not room for Ballard, Roosevelt and Garfield to receive their students.

We are not going to move anybody to those schools?

Correct.

But all of the rest will be laid out.

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

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

So it starts the work there's a lot of the work that can be green lighted that's not an issue but getting started on that would be important.

Burke And that date for that would be?

please clarify your question.

Burke the date for that discussion of when that data would be received?

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

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

Harris second the motion.

They are just construction change orders.

We know we are going to do so many.

This allows us to do X many.

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

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

Director Geary.

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

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

And we can start in the other areas.

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

Director Burke I just want John Cerqui deputy general counsel.

My concern with the amendment is I just want to make sure that we can execute and move on the contract.

If it's worded in a way that allows the vendor to not move forward on moving our portables or to put us in the queue because there's contingencies built in that it's now subject to some that's going to happen June 28 then that could put off the ability to get portables in place to have classrooms.

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

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

I think I appreciate that because that's my intent as well is that we can initiate the contract work but that we just have a clear understanding that there is a feedback opportunity and that it's built into that work session.

And hearing that it's potentially not disruptive of the work you're doing other than if we choose to make a change collectively that would be the disruption but that would be a planned disruption.

May I make a comment?

Stephen Nielsen deputy I would suggest you change the word considered to something other than that.

Because as I hear the word considered I'm not sure if that means discussion whether that means considered for vote.

It's not clear to me.

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

You are still a director in spite of your sign.

Thank you.

Right.

So process question we have a motion and a second.

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

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

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

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

Until it's been voted on.

Go ahead.

OK.

I'll try to do this again.

So I move that or the.

Yeah.

I lost it.

That the.

It's gone.

It's just gone.

Did anybody write that down?

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

OK.

I move that the content of Amendment A or sorry Appendix A attachment A attachment A?

The content of attachment A shall be reviewed at the June 28 board meeting including consideration.

No there's that word.

With respect to enrollment and capacity figures.

Updated enrollment and capacity numbers.

Did that work?

Is there a second?

Harris does it need the next part of the sentence about it's in different destinations?

I think just the content of attachment A.

It's just a placeholder.

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

Vote on the amendment first.

Can I ask one clarifying question here again?

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

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

All right well if there are no more questions or comments about this amendment let us have a roll call on this amendment.

Director Blanford aye.

Director Burke aye.

Director Geary aye.

Director Harris aye.

Director Patu aye.

Director Pinkham aye.

Director Peters aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

Thank you.

This amendment has passed unanimously.

My apologies.

Now vote on the motion.

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

Please.

Director Burke aye Director Harris aye Director Pinkham aye Director Blanford aye Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

Thank you everybody.

So that concludes the action portion of the evening we now move on to our intro items.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 1718 smart goals and rubrics were discussed at board work sessions on March 22 and April 18. The documents have been edited since then based on that feedback.

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

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

The four goals build on the work of the 16-17 goals.

The SMART goals represent two thirds of the superintendent's evaluation the other one third is regarding professional practice and will be brought forward in a separate motion at a later board meeting.

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

Any questions or comments about this item?

Director Nyland.

It's late.

What is it?

I can't get it.

Four years, four goals, student achievement.

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

So thank you.

I appreciate the consistency.

It helps us do good work.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions or comments?

Okay let's move on to item 2 approval of the third year renewal of contract B01538 with goody man distributing incorporated for bread products for 2017-18.

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

Welcome associate superintendent McEvoy.

Pegi McEvoy assistant superintendent operations.

Thank you.

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

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

The first one is goodie ma'am this is what provides bread for our students to the contract amount is $250,000 181 and there has been no increases in the dollar amounts for next year because the nutrition services has been able to manage the budget.

And we have been satisfied with the contract completion by the provider.

Director Geary.

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

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

There have been problems with that over the years but because it's the three-year contract we have renewed it and they have They have fixed those problems but what I recall you saying Pegi is that we would prefer to be working with our local vendor and somebody who is providing fresh made.

product.

So my question for you, if you required to have this lower, except the lower bid, what do we need to have happen in terms of the rules around the bidding process?

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

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

I can't even speak I'm so tired.

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

Thank you for that.

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

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

That's a state requirement.

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

Yes, so when we go out for proposals, what we can do is be very specific about what we want within those proposals.

And certainly having local produce not only reduces the carbon footprint, but it also gives us more ability to have fresher products and more nimbleness when we need to alter our deliveries.

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

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

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

Director Blanford.

Following up on that we wouldn't be susceptible to a challenge from what had been the low bidder before saying that the conditions that prevent them from being able to bid in the future are not material to the to the actual delivery of the item.

I could imagine a someone saying this is unfair.

We've bid in the past we've received the bid and now there is a clause in the RFP that doesn't allow us to even compete anymore.

And so that's one of the things that we had brought to the contracting department because that was our concern also.

How can we really do this?

And because of the number of issues that we've had because we've not had the nimbleness in delivery of our products some of the products actually were right on the edge of being expired and so because of that they feel like that we can put this requirement into the RFP.

Okay so I want to move on to the next two items since they're all related and that is the approval of the third year renewal contract B01539 with duck delivery for fresh produce for the 2017-18 school year and item four approval of the third year renewal contract B01540 with dairy fresh farms for fluid milk products miscellaneous dairy products and juice products for 2017-18.

I hope the chair of operations committee can tell us about those.

Blanford.

This item and the next 30 items are all heard by the operations committee on the 18th of May and move forward for approval.

And these contracts are groups that we have used for a number of contract renewals so we've been very satisfied with them they are local.

The duck delivery is for an amount of $900,000 for fresh produce and the dairy fresh farms is for milk and juice for a little over $1 million.

Are there any questions or comments about these items?

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

The next three items.

These are all BEX related and BTA related.

Let's see.

Number five BEX IV resolution 2016 17-18 board acceptance of the building commissioning report for the Hazel Wolf K8 at Pinehurst replacement project.

Could the chair of ops please address this one and the following two?

What's that?

You said all three?

Well some of these were ones for consideration so.

You'll get to that.

Okay.

All right.

These ones were both advanced for approval.

Best again director of capital projects and planning.

Your acceptance of the building commissioning is required for OSPI form D11 and building commissioning is a point to point check of the mechanical system and how it is being operated by the computer to make sure and I'll give you a very simple example that if the damper is to be if the computer requires the outside air damper to be open 35% someone has visibly checked that the computer has called for that damper to be open 35% and that damper is indeed open 35%.

And so we hired a commissioning agent EEI And to perform this work for us Mike McBee one of our mechanical electrical coordinators works closely with them to confirm that indeed these systems are functioning in the manner in which they were intended and you have their report.

And a copy of the executive summary.

In your board action report.

Director Pinkham.

Director Pinkham.

Just a general comment, how has Hazel Wolfcade been doing with its you know the certification that it was awarded for being a nice green LEED certified or whatever building?

Have we seen return on the costs for the school?

It usually takes Director Pinkham one year to get all of these building systems dialed in.

They generally have to go through a summer performance period and then also a winter performance period to get them totally dialed in.

This will be one of our most energy efficient schools and I imagine you will see that next year.

This effort has just completed.

I know that we learned some things in the middle of winter that we needed to adjust on the sequence of operations for that school.

I look forward to seeing how those numbers trend.

And believe me I'm interested too and I track that information so.

Peters All right let's move on to the next item 6 BEX IV capacity flexibility approval of a budget transfer for the Maple Elementary School cross laminated timber project.

So the state of Washington is implementing a cross laminated timber project at Maple elementary school.

It is approximately a million dollars in value to Seattle public schools that we are not having to pay for.

They are also doing this at four other schools across the state of Washington, four other school districts across the state of Washington.

With Seattle Public Schools they are exceeding their appropriation for our school districts so they have asked that we fund some of the improvements that we are requesting.

A couple of examples, we asked that this addition be built close to the school so it could interact with the other schools that place it on a playground.

We wanted the playground, the building principal wanted the playground reconstructed and so that is one of the items that we are funding with this budget request.

Another item is this school is in the CTAC white path so we are asking that the windows be enhanced to reduce sound noise at Maple Elementary School.

And then there is some costs for building permits that exceed costs for building permits in other municipalities throughout the state of Washington.

And so they've given us a small list.

In addition we wanted to draw your attention and it was never the state's intention to furnish these four classrooms that they are providing for us, to provide technology for these four classrooms that they are providing for us.

and curriculum.

So we have included that in our budget request and this would come from BEX IV capacity flexibility dollars.

We did reach out to OSPI to see if we could use the K3 class size reduction grant and at this moment in time they have told us that we cannot use those dollars for this purpose.

Dr. Herndon is continuing to have those conversations.

He's hoping to bring that to resolution by the time this comes to action for you, before you, but at this moment in time we've been told no. that we cannot use K-3 class size reduction dollars.

The ironic thing is the state of Washington is looking at this to see if it can resolve K-3 classroom if it can build K-3 classrooms in a cost-effective manner.

So it's an irony.

So.

Peters

Can you speak to the impetus for this project?

I recognize that Maple is space constrained but do we launch this because we had a grant opportunity and now we have to backfill?

Or was this a planned project already that the grant was able to build on?

I'm trying to figure out what… Best We were initially hoping Director Burke to receive a 10 classroom CLT addition.

and look at constructing that at West Woodlands elementary school.

The state of Washington revised their plan and said no we want to award a smaller classroom addition and we want to do it throughout the state so school districts can come and look at these additions that are being built throughout the state of Washington.

So Mount Vernon, Squim and Seattle have been awarded the CLT grants on the west side, there's two school districts on the east side of the cascades that have also been awarded.

And so when it was just a four classroom addition, Maple elementary school made sense.

And we are experiencing growth there and this has actually solved the capacity issues for us at Maple Elementary School.

Thank you.

It's it it could be perceived as an underfunded mandate but it's really if I'm interpreting correctly it's really just leveraging dollars that we're getting the vast majority of a project that we needed paid for and we're covering what's left.

The legislature appropriated a fixed amount of money and state of Washington slightly exceeded that with our project because of some of the unique aspects of it.

Thank you.

Director Pinkham.

Can you help with me I guess getting the clarification right when are we going to include curriculum on such projects like this?

I see a curriculum in one of the budget items for $40,000 on this.

Correct we are providing the curriculum for the third grade classrooms that we are going to be placing in here Director Pinkham.

These are actually addressing capacity we are creating new classrooms they are not existing classrooms and we are purchasing the curriculum at a capital fund to take some burden off the general fund.

And we are allowed to do that by the state of Washington.

Thank you.

So let's move on to our final item BEX IV and BTA IV Lincoln high school modernization budget increase for exterior improvements including modification to Bassetti architects contract P1436 and adjustments to Lydig construction contract P5084.

Back to the chair of ops.

This item was heard on the 18th of May and was moved forward for consideration.

So we are coming before the board and asking for a budget increase to replace the existing windows on the Western buildings at Lincoln high school.

And then also to implement what is known as tuck pointing but it is to repair the mortar joints on the brick on the West buildings at Lincoln high school.

This was a item that we had identified when We put BTA IV the initial request before the prior board on BTA IV we were asked to reduce that amount significantly.

It was an item that we removed from the list.

And as our architects and our contractors have delved deeper into this building we think that was a bad decision.

It would be most timely to do this in an unoccupied building.

These windows are in very poor condition.

If you haven't been to Lincoln high school to look at the existing conditions of these windows I would encourage you to do that between now when you would take action on this and in addition the masonry is also in very poor condition and I would draw your attention to the northwest most building there on the masonry and also it's a great example of the windows as well.

So we would fund this utilizing BTA III program contingency dollars.

Open it up to questions.

I'm going to have to ask you to keep it brief because we are running out of tape again.

I only have one question which is if we had no contingency what would you do?

Where would you find the money?

How would you scale this back to fit within the budget that we had if we had no contingency?

And that could be a future conversation if it's something that needs more thought.

Yeah I would like to give that a little, that's a good question Director Burke and I would like to give that some thought and I will respond to that in next week's Friday moment of the board.

Because I recognize that means that we would give up things.

Yes.

And we would have to give up things but that's a lot of money.

Yep I recognize it's a lot of money.

I will say that timing I think is also important and the timing to do it is really with that building unoccupied.

Okay thanks.

Peters All right if there are no further questions or comments I call this meeting adjourned at 1021 PM.

Thank you everybody.

Oh sorry sorry take that back I unadjourn it.

We are actually going to recess to executive session and we will return Here we go.

The executive session will begin at the conclusion of the room.

It will last approximately 30 minutes and we will reconvene at the conclusion to adjourn the meeting.

No further action will be taken as a result of the executive session.

So we are expected to be back 30 minutes to just officially adjourn.

You.

Oh.