School Board Meeting June 6, 2018 P3

Action item number one approval of annual highly capable program plan.

This came before C&I May 15th for.

Approval.

Approval of this item would approve the district's highly capable program plan which must be approved every year per Washington Administrative Code 3 9 2 hyphen 1 7 0 hyphen 2 5 to receive state funding.

Motion please.

I move that the board approve the highly capable plan as attached to the board action report for submission to OSPI for school year 2017 18 to support highly capable services and the district's gifted eligibility identification process and that the school board authorized the superintendent to apply for the allocation of funds from OSPI.

I second the motion.

Comments questions concerns from my colleagues.

We spent approximately 50 minutes on this issue at the intro item of this last meeting.

I just want to tee that up as well that we we had a rich discussion around this which is a report basically on what we're doing now not what we're planning to do.

We've created an advanced learning task force to help us map out what we're doing in terms of program services and also program identification moving forward.

So my hope is that we can.

I'm planning to support this item and would like to do it with some brevity.

Director Harris.

Yeah I have essentially kind of two things I want to touch on.

Staff supplied the board with some additional follow up to our information it's not included in the BAR so it's not it's publicly available if you ask for e-mails but it's not actually in the BAR so there's information that's been provided that I wanted to touch on a little bit.

The two areas of concern one is the I have ongoing concern about the change in the appeal process and the criteria that was made after it was noticed to parents when and families when they're nominating their students for this program part of the.

WAC the administrative code requires that parents be notified of what the process for appeals is.

And after that process this past year started the criteria for appeals.

was raised from what what is the criteria in the typical assessment process of a 98th percentile 95th 95th to a 99th 99th 99th.

And the question that I had asked of staff was how many students.

would have actually been accepted and under the criteria that's been used for many years not the 99th 99th and 9th but the same one that is for our district testing to be used for the appeals.

And what came back is essentially 140 students.

is kind of my guess but we don't know that specifically but there's from my perspective there's potentially 140 students that are being denied access of services.

And so in talking with staff I've asked for that to be dug into a little bit further so that we can see if there maybe needs to be something to.

change and staff is committed to doing that over the next couple of weeks.

So I appreciate staff's responsiveness to investigating that.

And because the question that I have around it is that we don't we don't know the racial demographics of those students we don't know.

We don't know by by raising the bar on the appeal process.

We don't know that that necessarily.

didn't create more access for students that are disadvantaged which is one of our major goals.

And in fact it potentially helped reduce access for students that are single domain twice exceptional students etc.

So that's the one.

thing I want to touch on and thank staff for being responsive to that.

The other thing is actually I'd like to call Carrie up to to speak a little bit more about the the universal screening for Title 1 in second grade which is part of our effort to increase access to services and identification for students that are disadvantaged.

And I understand that there's been a shift in this year's process for how that will be playing out and I'd like you to talk about that a little bit.

Thank you.

Carrie Hansen director of student support services.

Yes the the practice of screening students in second grade at all of our title schools has been in place for about the last four years occurs in the spring.

And the purpose for that is to identify potentially students who would potentially benefit from advanced learning services highly capable services etc. and to.

To get out in front of really helping to identify these underrepresented populations find where those kids are get them set up for services etc.

So this year or let me start with last year.

So last year we did that practice and we ran a series of.

screenings out at the schools partnered with the schools and then administered the assessment that provided for eligibility.

That created a ripple effect as you can imagine because the decisions for facilities and enrollment planning had been made several months before.

And so that was not operationally viable.

So what we what we did this year in keeping especially with House Bill that had passed last summer that asks for highly capable programs in all districts to prioritize the identification of children of poverty within free and reduced lunch services is we kept that practice and we are now screening those students.

So we go out to 32 title schools partner with the schools and the staff provide a screener to those students and those results are being taken a look at right now.

From here that information will be provided to the schools so that we can see and early identify kids who have potential for benefit in those highly capable and advanced learning programs.

And just for clarification in not this past school year but the school year prior the screening was provided and then those students went into the assessment the actual assessment that would identify them as highly capable or advanced learners and.

And then they would be provided services the following school year.

Correct.

Eligibility was determined in the process last year and that eligibility then provided the opportunity to be placed or to enter an HC cohort school or to shift placement which was occurring after enrollment planning decision making had been taken care of and done.

And so in this year's process where we've done the screening those students unfortunately this year are not being there.

The timeline is too late for them to do the full assessment.

So their screening will be for nomination for the process that is starting now which will be completed next year and then eligibility begins the following year.

That is correct.

And that that timeline.

continues to cause me heartburn and concern because that's essentially a year and a half delay of students that we start to identify that they need services and they don't have access for a while.

So recognizing that our timeline of.

Nomination assessment identification and then access to services is a long timeline and that we are moving into a process with the task force and to to look at these processes and these different things that we're doing.

I just I want to just elevate top of mind that that timeline is concerning that that we need to shorten that to be able to provide students access to services sooner and for all students and especially our most disadvantaged.

So I the the element of the screening in the spring to help nominate students that may not have been nominated is a great step in the right direction.

And we need to continue to do more to in the process that we're we're working on now.

Can I make one point of clarification?

Yes please.

So what I want to note is that services for students who are identified or potentially identified occur at the neighborhood school as well as the cohort.

So as we provide information to students to schools about their students through this process services can be provided in the neighborhood setting.

They wouldn't have the official eligibility and they wouldn't be able to enter a cohort till the following year.

But services at the school are currently there for over 500 students today.

So just to be clear we want to make sure we know that services are provided at the cohort but also in the neighborhood setting as well.

Which also I think from a transitional perspective is is a positive that you can ramp up if there's a two year acceleration to be moving into the cohort or something of that nature.

So it so it actually you know there is a benefit to that.

Yes.

Director Burke.

Other comments questions concerns from my colleagues.

Now's the time.

Director Pinkham.

It has the issue of possibly again the appeals process differing on different websites has that been addressed or was that ever tracked down that we oh yes we did have two different appeals processes.

Yes thank you for asking that question.

Yes there was a time and I'm going to I want to tell you it was around December January when the appeals process began that we did hear from a parent that there was inconsistent information on the website that had been located through a search.

That's been corrected.

We've searched and we've checked the website and the appeals process is accurate as of now.

Yes but that did come up and it was addressed at the time.

So what was the recourse for probably a family that went by the old process that they found.

Were they still denied or did you give them some leeway.

OK.

Sorry that was on us.

We'll let you proceed.

Correct.

Yes when they had it was more of a question we're seeing a couple of different things here.

What's the contacted advanced learning advanced learning checked into it found the error corrected it.

And to my recollection it did not interfere with that family's appeals process.

And if you have information that's different from that please let me know.

Director Mack please excuse me.

I do want to create clarification around this this the criteria of the appeals changing from what it had been in the past and what the superintendent procedure states what the criteria is.

There isn't a there isn't a testing criteria stated for appeals but there is a criteria stated for the assessment.

And that is 98th percentile 95th and 95th.

In the fall after nominations had gone out the district changed the practice and changed the website for the appeals to be 99th 99th 99th.

That was done after the original nominations were done.

And there were reportedly a couple of different ways of it being explained.

Three deviations from the mean 99th percentile.

These are different ways of kind of talking about the same thing but they're not exactly the same thing and that for me the challenge is twofold.

One then the notification of that and the change happened after the nominations went out.

And the second part is that.

There is as far as I understand it no empirical evidence and in fact the psychologists have written in to say setting this criteria for the appeals is not necessarily an appropriate way to either increase access to students who can't have it and may be potentially denying students access that should have it.

Director Burke.

Without going all Robert's rules I was wondering if we could actually get to a vote on this and just I want to make sure that all directors recognize we've got a four stage process through the task force and the identification process is phase three of that.

And there's going to be work sessions there's going to be opportunities to weigh in.

So make sure that these thoughts these concerns are you know written shared.

We're going to we're going to work them into our discussion.

Other questions comments concerns seeing none.

It's my turn.

I will be voting no on this resolution.

I am beyond thrilled that we finally have a task force and that we are going to embrace this challenge and put folks in the same room and actually have honest conversations as opposed to polarizing this issue.

It has cost this district and our families and staff and us harm.

The way this issue has been twirled and cuisinarted around is unconscionable to me as a board director.

I don't believe we have done right by our special ed community with respect to advanced learning opportunities.

I don't think we have been transparent in Getting rid of our AL programs throughout the city and then we are surprised that the HCC applications skyrocketed bit by bit by bit by non transparent bit.

Again I am beyond thrilled that we are embracing the challenge.

But pitting communities and their children against each other is. unconscionable to me.

I'm distressed that the cogent answers we got via email were not attached to this resolution.

And I think we can and must do better with respect to engaging our community and communicating to our community.

I guess one of the things that also distresses me greatly is that it was a few short months ago that we heard from this dais our superintendent and yourself that we did not have an advisory committee.

Yet on page 1 we are leaning on that advisory committee in our report to the state.

And I feel a little PTSD because a couple of years ago we had some of the similar conversations here and we use the Ingram IBX program as a good reason for giving us state money.

Yet we had zero data whatsoever.

We still have yet to see data in terms of honors for all.

We have yet to see data what's working what's not working.

And most importantly there is no there there.

There is no special curriculum.

We sat in a research advisory work session where a hired contractor started talking about curriculum.

We had to stop her and say is it your understanding we have highly capable curriculum because we don't.

Again I so look forward to the future working together and I'm voting no.

And with that roll call please.

Director Burke.

Yes.

Director DeWolf.

Yes.

Director Mack.

Yes.

Director Patu.

No.

Director Pinkham.

Yes.

This motion is passed with a vote of 4 to 2. Director Harris.

That would be a no.

Thank you.

This motion is passed with a vote of 4 to 2.

Number two renewal of Washington schools risk management pool coverage for fiscal year 2018 19. This came before A&F on May 14th for.

For approval.

Approval of this item would accept the proposed Washington schools risk management pool coverage agreement for the 2018 19 fiscal year and that the expenditure of two million five hundred fifty six thousand five hundred fifty six dollars in premium contributions to the WSR MP loss funding pool be authorized.

May I have the motion please sir.

I move that the superintendent be authorized to accept the proposed Washington schools risk management pool coverage agreement for the 2018 19 fiscal year and that the expenditure of two million five hundred and fifty six thousand five hundred and fifty six dollars in premium contributions to the WSRMP loss funding pool be authorized.

And I second the motion.

Comments questions concerns from my colleagues.

And in fact there's no real choice here kids.

Roll call please.

Director DeWolf Yes.

Director Mack Yes.

Director DeWolf Yes.

Director Pinkham Yes.

Director Burke Yes.

Director Harris Yes.

This motion has passed unanimously.

Number three City of Seattle's City of Seattle.

Families and Ed Levy funding for Seattle Public Schools for summer learning 2018 and the 2018 19 school year.

This came before A&F May 14th for.

For approval as were items 4 and 5.

Approval of this item would accept 19 million six hundred forty six thousand six eighty seven in grant funding from the city of Seattle's families and education levy motion please.

I move that the board authorize the superintendent to accept the grant funds totaling 19 million six hundred and forty six thousand six hundred ninety seven dollars from the city of Seattle's families and education levy for the family support worker elementary middle and high school innovation middle school linkage and school health programs with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to accept the grant funds.

I second the motion.

Comments questions concerns from my colleagues and I see Mr. Stone our grants administrator ready to answer same.

Ready willing and able.

Director Mack roll call please.

Director Mack.

Director Patu yes.

Director Pinkham aye Director Burke yes.

Director DeWolf yes.

Director Harris aye.

This motion is passed unanimously.

Number four acceptance of screening and brief intervention and referral to SBIRT services grant for the amount of one million twenty thousand dollars in parens three hundred forty thousand dollars per year through August 31 2021. This came before A&F May 14th for.

Approval.

Approval of this item would authorize the superintendent to accept the school based screening and brief intervention and referral to treatment grant from King County in the amount of one million twenty thousand dollars three hundred and forty thousand dollars a year for the three year period from September 1 2018 to August 31 2021. Motion please.

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to accept the school based screening and brief intervention and referral to treatment grant from King County in the amount of one million twenty thousand dollars three hundred forty thousand dollars a year for the three year period from September 1 2018 to August 31 2021. I second the motion.

Questions comments concerns director Mack.

I wanted to touch on a couple things related to this that I think this is a it's it's wonderful that we're getting this these programs and funding this but I wanted to create some clarification around which schools are not receiving these these services is it because first If you could do me a quick favor and kind of briefly explain what this program does.

If I understand it's some suicide prevention work and if you could briefly.

Director of Grants Michael Stone I will have Lisa Davison come up and present that.

Good evening I'm Lisa Davidson the manager of prevention and intervention.

The program is to provide screening for mental health substance use disorder and other issues that our students might be experiencing in our middle schools then provide a brief intervention for them if that is what is deemed as needed motivational interviewing and other brief supports or a referral to more intensive services such as treatment counseling mentorship activities whatever it might be.

And those services will be delivered at the three schools that were newly funded which would be Jane Adams Middle School Whitman Middle School and Madison Middle School.

In addition to us accepting this funding the county has agreed to continue similar services at Hamilton Seattle World School.

And Meany thank you.

And Meany Middle School.

In addition to these programs we also have very similar ones at Aki Kurose at Denny and at Washington Middle School.

The area schools are eligible for these grants based on drug and alcohol use rates suicidal ideation rates etc.

But for clarification which middle schools do not have a program such as this?

So by elimination I would say McClure Eckstein Mercer.

Is that everyone that's left.

I think that might be correct.

I'm forgetting.

Yeah.

I also also share that JoLynn Berge sent some data around the because another question that I had asked related to this BAR previously was around Where do we have health services in all of our middle schools and nurses and full time nurses and where don't we.

And I was trying to pull it up and I don't actually have it in front of me so I can't.

read specifically but we have some really big gaps in our middle schools where some of them we have the students will have access to the health services centers and a full time nurse.

Great.

That's what all schools should have.

And then we have other schools that have point five or point two nurse.

So we have we have gaps.

We have big gaps in terms of some schools not getting.

the coverage for these services and I just I just really want to make that transparent and clear that it's wonderful to get these grants but it's difficult when we're not providing the same thing in all schools.

Director DeWolf.

Yeah I guess just for that comment for clarification don't the schools decide their budgets for if they want a nurse Or counselors right.

Just trying to.

They get to find their staff or.

Thank you JoLynn.

JoLynn Berge assistant superintendent for budget finance to some degree.

I mean schools are getting nursing allocations.

We know that the state's only providing nine nurses for our fifty four thousand kids.

There are still big holes left.

They do have some discretionary dollars but those discretionary dollars they're short nurses they're short counselors or short librarians.

They have tough choices to make every day and every year in their budgets.

Other comments questions concerns.

Roll call please.

Director Burke aye Director DeWolf yes Director Mack yes Director Patu yes Director Pinkham aye Director Harris aye.

This motion is passed unanimously.

Number five kids in the middle grant from the Nesholm Family Foundation.

This came before A&F May 14th.

He told me before it was approved.

Approval of this item would authorize the superintendent to accept the kids in the middle grant funds from Nesholm Family Foundation in the amount of six hundred fifty five thousand two hundred fifty five dollars for the 2018 2019 school year.

Motion please sir.

I move that the board authorize the superintendent to accept the kids in the middle grant funds from the Nesholm Foundation in the amount of six hundred and fifty five thousand two hundred and fifty five dollars for the 2018 19 school year.

I second the motion.

This one is always so wonderful to say thank you for because it's made such a very very big difference.

And also that they have encouraged other foundations to link up for the feeder schools meaning the Satterberg Foundation.

Superintendent Nyland you work real hard on all this.

You want to say a few words please.

Delighted yes.

It would be I guess this would be the dream of having all of those arrows actually touch each other because that's what they did.

They started 20 years ago and they had ideas about how they wanted to make things work and they didn't work.

And they came back and they tried again and they sat with the principals and they said let's make an inventory of all of the things that you're doing and please code them.

red yellow green.

What are the ones that have the highest impact?

What are the ones that have the least impact?

And let's work more on the ones that have the highest impact.

And then what do you need?

And within reason I've never quite sat in on one of their meetings.

I will make one next Wednesday before I leave.

They really do have that partnership where they make the arrows touch and then they send principals off to look at something that would solve that dilemma somewhere in the world.

And then they come back and they try it in one of the schools they work the bugs out of it.

They try it in another school or two and.

Wallah 15 years later you have this miracle.

So those three middle schools are among the top five statewide in terms of the number of African-American students they serve and they have their in first second and third place for the number of African-American students who are proficient in middle school.

So.

Right.

It works.

And so yeah I mean they're premier premier premier premier partner in that they come they bring money and they sit side by side with us.

And when you talk to the Nesholm's they can talk this better than I can talk this because they have been there side by side working with us over many many many years.

Thank you.

Questions comments concerns.

When you meet with them next Wednesday please give them our undying gratitude.

Roll call please.

Director Burke.

Enthusiastic.

Yes.

Director DeWolf.

Yes.

Director Geary.

Sorry.

Director Mack.

Yes.

Director Patu.

Yes.

Director Pinkham.

Yes.

Director Harris aye this motion is passed unanimously.

Number six BTA IV BEX IV approval of four actions related to Daniel Begley school modernization and addition project.

This came before Ops May 10 for approval.

Approval of this plan would authorize a 10 million dollar budget transfer a contract amendment a resolution and the GC CM alternative construction delivery method for the Bagley modernization and addition project.

Motion please.

Everybody take a deep breath.

This one's going to take a minute.

I move that the school board one approve a one time fund transfer of two million eight hundred and eight thousand two hundred and forty three dollars from BTA III program contingency five million dollars from BEX IV program contingency one million one hundred ninety one thousand seven hundred fifty seven dollars from BEX IV capacity flexibility and one million dollars from the state of Washington's K-3 class size reduction grant.

to the BTA IV BEX IV Bagley Elementary modernization and addition project budget for a total transfer that exceeds that equals ten thousand ten million dollars.

Wow.

Two authorize the superintendent to execute a modification to contract P 1452 with Miller Hayashi architecture in the amount of four hundred and eighty two thousand dollars four hundred eighty two thousand dollars two hundred and seven $482,270.53 for additional design for the Bagley elementary school modernization and addition project with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the contract amendment.

Three.

Authorized the superintendent to utilize the GCCM alternative construction delivery method on the Bagley modernization and addition project and approve resolution 2 2017 slash 18 dash 2 as attached to this board action report in accordance with the office's superintendent of public instruction OSPI provision in the form D 5 application and.

4 authorize the superintendent to execute a construction contract with Leiden construction for the general contractor construction manager GCCM contract for the Bagley modernization and addition project to set the guaranteed maximum price GMP as defined by RCW 39 dot 10 dot 370 at an amount not to exceed twenty seven million four hundred and twenty eight thousand six hundred and sixty nine dollars.

And I get the short part.

I second that emotion.

Well done.

But my voice was loud enough and I didn't need it.

We had a vigorous conversation at intro.

It had a vigorous airing in ops questions and concerns.

It's real money and it's complex.

Director Mack.

I think I'd just like to make the comment that.

The plan that has been developed I think is responsive to the capacity needs and the landmarking needs and the community needs in the playground space and that it does balance to the best of our ability.

All of those needs in the current state and I'm ready to vote.

Director DeWolf.

Thank you President Harris.

I just had just a random question.

I forgot to ask this.

The designated historic landmark.

Does the city provide any resources for for us to.

I don't know.

Is there any mitigation money or are they providing resources for that?

No.

The landmarking process provides no resources whatsoever to Seattle Public Schools.

It is revenue consuming.

And is that revenue some 20 percent plus usually.

It varies.

It varies by project.

Director Harris.

I don't have those numbers right off the top of my head for this school.

I could get that information for you.

It is not insignificant by any means.

I am not aware of how many times we've been before the landmarks board for Daniel Bagley elementary school and to get their approval and we are still seeking their approval.

But I do know for Magnolia Elementary School we were required to go before the landmarks board prior to getting approval for that project eight different times.

And there is considerable cost in going before that board in preparation of documents to be submitted by our architectural and engineering teams and then just the organizational capacity.

I know it's substantially added costs to that project.

And we have done an analysis of that for Dr. Herndon and he has previously shared that with our state legislators.

I don't remember that number either off the top of my head.

At some point could you share that with your directors and could you also share some kind of a chart that addresses appeals etc. as well and both the human capital costs and the bottom line numbers that come with that.

Because I don't want to ever get in anybody's rights to appeal.

But but I do want a price tag added to it.

I think that that is part of the message we need and have to send.

Other questions comments concerns about the Bagley project.

Seeing none roll call please.

Director Mack aye Director Patu aye Director Pinkham no.

Director Burke aye Director DeWolf yes.

Director Harris aye.

This motion is passed with a vote of 6 to 1. 5 to 1. Excuse me.

This motion has passed with a vote of 5 to 1.

Thank you.

Number 7 BTA IV award contracts K 5 0 9 8 K 5 0 9 9 K 50 100 K 50 1 0 1 K 50 1 0 2. for athletic field lighting projects at Ballard Cleveland Franklin and Roosevelt high schools and Robert Eagle Staff Middle School.

This came before Ops May 10 for.

Consideration.

Approval of this item would award contracts with the King County Directors Association KCDA with a total combined amount of two million three hundred eighty one thousand five hundred eighty nine dollars for the athletic field lighting projects at Ballard High School Cleveland High School Franklin High School Roosevelt High School and Robert Eagle Staff Middle School.

Motion please.

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute the following contracts with the King County Directors Association KCDA for athletic field lighting projects contract K 5 0 9 8 in the amount of four hundred and sixty four thousand seven hundred and three dollars for Ballard High School contract K 5 0 9 9. in the amount of three hundred and thirteen thousand five hundred dollars for Cleveland High School contract K 5 1 0 0 in the amount of five hundred twenty seven thousand nine hundred five hundred twenty seven thousand seven hundred ninety seven dollars.

For Franklin High School contract K 5 1 0 1 in the amount of four hundred and sixteen thousand seven hundred ninety six dollars for Roosevelt High School and contract K 5 1 0 2 in the amount of six hundred and fifty eight thousand seven hundred ninety three dollars for Robert Eagle Staff Middle School plus Washington State sales tax with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the contracts.

I second the motion.

Questions comments concerns.

Director Mack.

Good evening Mr. Best.

Good evening.

This came to Ops and we had a good conversation around one that that it's projected to be under budget which is one thing that is nice to hear.

And there were questions raised in testimony tonight that have come since that didn't reach my years in the Ops Committee or in the introduction related to a couple of things more than two.

And I think I'll go backwards on them.

One of them the questions that was raised was about the timing of when the lights will get turned off and the idea that students will be using it up until 7 o'clock but the rest of the community will be using it until 10. And as I got to thinking about that I was wondering What is our joint use agreement with parks on these fields.

And is that true that it will be student use up until 7 and then after it'll be 10 o'clock and they'll be shut off every night at 10.

I can't speak to the joint use agreement.

Director Mack off the top of my head maybe Dr. Herndon can.

I can tell you in conversations with high school administrators athletic directors they see the opportunity to extend the use of the field for varsity then junior varsity and then C level teams.

I do know that those conversations have been ongoing.

specifically at the high schools.

I'm unsure about Robert Eagle Staff Middle School.

I know that is a location that we have discussed for some activities to be held for Lincoln High School given that it does not have a field on site.

We've also looked at utilization of Lower Woodland Park I can.

Could I have Dr. Perkins speak to the specific joint use agreements is not attached to this bar but I think that the details of that are actually really important to understand.

Yes so the way the joint use agreement works is that for both Seattle Public Schools fields and Seattle parks fields.

There is a guarantee of time for Seattle Public Schools high school teams to use fields on parks fields until 645 on SPS fields until 7 o'clock.

After that.

Because of our SPS fields we book those fields we prioritize our teams first.

So if teams need to go longer than that our teams will go longer than that and they will have that guarantee on our SPS fields.

For parks fields they don't have that guarantee.

So after 645 it means that community teams generally will be prioritized ahead of SPS athletic teams which is why we are looking at lighting our SPS fields because that will guarantee us more field time for our teams.

And just to clarify that that is Seattle Public Schools books the time on our fields.

Correct.

Do the lights stay on if something's not booked?

No.

So if there is an anytime Seattle Public School teams are using the fields you know we don't charge ourselves.

The lights would be on for our students if there is a community use including a youth team.

So we do have club teams and youth athletic teams that are outside of SPS.

We charge them the utilities of whatever that may be.

So it's much like renting a gym or an auditorium in our buildings.

If they want lights or sound or heat then we charge that utility for that.

So if they want lights they would have to pay for the lights that particular time.

But if they haven't paid for lights the fields aren't going to be lit.

They don't stay on.

And is there a deadline of 10 o'clock?

It varies.

Each field's a little bit different and I think those were each outlined in the SIPAs for each of the fields.

The latest field we have is Memorial Stadium which has a shut off time of midnight I believe.

So anything that's happening there the rest of our fields vary anywhere between 10 and 11. It just depends on the field.

And if you've been out at one of the fields I've been out there for games.

They do shut off at the at the shut off time.

They will shut off.

So if you have a football game going on the team's now OK.

Lights shut off at 10 or 10 30 and they shut off at 10 or 10 30.

I can't help myself.

Flashlight tag.

Just end of contest whatever it is.

Yes.

Director Burke.

Some of the comments that we had heard in public testimony were new to me today.

And so I'm wondering the lighting that's going in at these fields.

Is that something which is that we can comp at other fields that already have lighting in terms of the type of lighting the height of the pole reflection from the fields.

Is this is this a typical installation or is there anything about it that's unique and new.

No this would be a unique and new installation.

It would be comparable to the installation that Blanchette High School has in the city of Seattle.

We have worked closely with a lighting consultant who has indicated that we will introduce a negligible amount of light pollution given the existing background levels at the various sites that we're talking about.

The LED lights that are being proposed are highly directional.

The higher the pole the more directional and the better ability we have to control glare.

I'd also note to the board that we've worked with a noise consultant and a traffic consultant on this project and the traffic consultant was both analyzing traffic and parking as part of our SEPA process.

The the data from that is that something that that can be presented to the board as part of this work.

Like what is the timing for this these projects to start and.

Projects would be anticipated to start once we get City of Seattle approval.

We have to go through a MUP 2 process getting a special exception for the light the height of the light of the height of the light poles.

30 feet is allowed by code.

We are proposing 70 to 90 feet and we're proposing that because it will prevent glare and light levels from leaving our property.

And that was affirmed in our SEPA decision and there was testimony from a lighting consultant speaking to that in our SEPA appeal hearings.

So what would be the ramifications if we wanted to go another cycle on this and be able to see the experience at Blanchette.

I assume it has similar pole height similar intensity.

Similar types of reflection and background noise.

Would there be time for us to do that in this process.

Yes there would be time for you to do that in this process.

So.

Director Pinkham then Director Mack.

Thank you for answering the questions here is also brought up that there were community meetings for these.

There were events but apparently there was also a community meeting where you took some questions and there's supposed to be a follow up meeting which never occurred.

Were the you know if those questions were answered because they collected cards and were there issues addressed that then wasn't shared in a follow up meeting or when why wasn't the follow up meeting scheduled.

I can tell you that we had community meetings and we had follow up community meetings.

I attended some of the community meetings and some of the follow up meetings not all of them.

Director Pinkham because some of them occurred on board nights.

Can't speak specifically as to why the follow up didn't occur but it's something that we definitely try to implement is to follow up with community when questions arise.

I believe this was for the Franklin site that there wasn't a follow up meeting or the community there wasn't aware of any follow up after the initial.

Director Mack.

So there was also a question raised in comment in testimony earlier around the additional parking and traffic impact and so forth.

And Director Burke just kind of.

mentioned this as well.

There are a number of details and documents that are not attached to this BAR including the SEPA the joint use agreement which is more you know details around like when the lights will actually get shut off and who gets to use it when and those sorts of things that is important for the community to understand is also important for me as a board member to understand.

So SEPA joint use agreement and then the noise and traffic study that that data is not actually provided here and I haven't seen that and I hadn't personally thought of that issue prior.

So I have the same question that Director Burke has as to whether or not we can actually delay the vote on this tonight until we get that information.

So I can tell you that SEPA documents are.

Hundreds of pages for each project and they are difficult to make ADA accessible because of the formats in which they have been developed.

They have lots of embedded graphs pictures but happy to make those available to the school board.

But they're difficult to make ADA accessible on our website.

Now when you say happy to make them available to the school board you mean put those in a — let me finish please.

Put them in a binder.

put them in the board office so that any member of the public can come look at them.

Would that be your understanding of accessible.

That would be OK.

Thank you.

Director Mack continue please.

Yeah I mean I'm I'm my question is procedural in terms of we've got a motion on the table and is it possible to make a motion to.

We have not all spoken to the motion on the table ma'am.

OK.

Thank you.

It's it's inappropriate to make an amendment or move it or to table it to a time certain when the rest of your colleagues haven't had an opportunity yet.

Director Pinkham.

And I just curious you know you mentioned Blanchette High School and.

That's kind of I think more unique it's their field you know to the west of it's their school and to the east of its hillside and then to the north is.

Arterial and then to the south.

So but then these other sites they got apartment complexes around them and so it seems like a little bit different if we use Blanchett as a.

site to kind of examine how these lights would work when there's different conditions at each site in particular if there's low income housing or subsidized housing.

And I was thinking about this a lot of those people have to work maybe multiple jobs and if we have lights on there past 10 p.m.

True they may not be home but they also may need to try to get some sleep and if any reflective light may be occurring.

So just curious that we got to watch out for that if we're using Blanchette as a model site to look at other sites.

Director DeWolf.

Thank you President Harris.

I appreciate all my fellow board directors comments.

I think for me particularly as somebody that lives in central Seattle Capitol Hill fastest growing neighborhood in the city densest neighborhood in the city.

I consider myself an urbanist.

I.

I feel comfortable not prioritizing cars and also we do live in a growing city and that is the tension here.

I think and particularly around the multifamily housing folks.

I don't want to assume for them what they think.

I live in multifamily housing in an urban setting and some of the issues around the lights.

I think somebody mentioned something about walking a large dog and how the lights.

might be an issue for that.

Those don't necessarily rise that level of kind of deep concern for me.

I certainly hear the neighborhoods feedback but I think as the city grows we are letting about a thousand folks come into the city each each week.

And these are just some of the parts of the growing pains I think of growing into our big city.

So I I'm having a hard time.

Director Burke.

Thank you.

I appreciate the way you articulated that Director DeWolf because I wanted after this discussion I just wanted to be very clear that my concerns personally are not whether we should or shouldn't put lighting.

I believe we should and really need to because we need full utilization of those fields.

I think we owe it to our students and we owe it to the community that's that's you know that for those to be a community resource to use.

My interest is to make sure that as we look at potentially a new strategy for lighting.

That which sounds great.

LED lighting focused you know a narrower field of view so therefore it has to go higher.

Everything about it absolutely resonates for me.

But I was just surprised to hear a level of concern that came a little bit late in the game.

And I wanted to understand what that was about.

So I don't want to read 100 pages of SEPA documents.

I'm going to go with the trust mentality that that the people who've done those documents have done their due diligence.

But I would be interested in seeing what that implementation looks like or hearing that a comparable site.

Basically that we're not breaking new ground at risk.

And so that was that was my concern in bringing it up not so much to get into the procedural or the SEPA.

OK.

I am going to try and wrap this up with some questions and some comments.

You mentioned SEPA appeals plural.

How many appeals have there been.

There have been five.

One for each project.

OK.

That has cost us approximately how much money.

Approximately twenty five to forty thousand dollars per project.

OK and on SEPA folks get notice correct.

Yes they do.

OK and they send the notice to the neighborhood correct.

They send the notice to those folks who have been who have asked to be notified.

We send the notice to certain departments and then within a geographical boundary of the of the project.

OK.

So so they had due process I guess is my point.

Deputy Nielsen can you come answer a couple of softballs here please.

If we are partnering with the city of Seattle if we signed an MOU if we are in the fastest growing metropolitan city in the country and we have no land left then doesn't it imply that we need to be good partners to the city when we are asking them to be good partners to us.

Indeed it does.

You want to expand on that.

Yeah.

Well let's start by saying that I don't play softball so nor do I play hardball.

Certainly the goal of our relationship with the city is to be strong partners as we're serving our public to save taxpayer dollars to streamline process to ensure taxpayers that we are utilizing their resources most effectively in any relationship that improves that opportunity is certainly in our best interest in that of our our supporters and our taxpayers and our critics for that matter.

The process described earlier and the costs are considerable and those are taxpayer dollars.

So anything that we can do to improve is good.

OK.

I intend to vote yes for this.

I am not.

Uncognizant of the neighborhood concerns but they have had their due process.

We don't have any land left in this city and I will vote no on any motion to send this down the road for another hearing.

So if someone wants to make a motion have at it.

That's why I get the big bucks.

Go.

We just mentioned the partnership agreement with the city of Seattle and we have a number of mechanisms for coordinating around traffic and school safety and things like that.

So the I think my remaining question around the comments that were brought up tonight was the traffic studies and the concern around the traffic flow around the fields and whether or not that has been reviewed by the safe schools committee.

So these different ones to ensure that we do have safe traffic patterns etc.

Director Mack is as part of the conditions on this project when the projects are complete and field lights are installed we are going back to analyze traffic.

And so we can have actual conditions rather than theoretical conditions.

But that is one of the requirements on the project.

Another requirement is that we work with the schools such that they don't have large events at the schools and a large you know non curriculum use of the athletic fields.

So.

There will be close coordination with parks and schools on these and we have to go back and do further traffic work when we have the the actual conditions in place.

There are they've utilized traffic studies and theoretical analysis at this moment in time.

So just for clarification we put the lights and we start doing the events and then we're going to go back and coordinate with parks and SDOT on potential changes that might need to be done.

And we do that with all of our school projects.

We find that our traffic engineers are very conservative in their projections.

So yeah.

Thanks for the clarification.

Director Pinkham.

Well given that I don't think I have enough information to vote on this positively given what I've heard from some public testimony and what's missing in this bar here.

No I don't expect to go through 100 pages of the SEVA but knowing that there are some communities ahead that were promised a follow up meeting and didn't occur.

So some of their answers aren't.

weren't addressed or they feel they weren't addressed.

So it sounds like you're not sure if every community had their their follow up meeting.

So I will go ahead and actually make a motion that we delay this for the June 27th meeting until we see and get some information that answers such questions as did all communities get their follow up meeting as needed.

Do we have a second.

Second.

Comments questions concerns on the amendment.

Director Burke.

Just to understand with this motion on the table what is the I know in the BAR it indicates that the possibility of completing projects in the summer but it's not a guarantee that all of them were going to complete in the summer.

Do you believe that this is still appropriate?

We are going to work diligently.

We still have to go through the city of Seattle special exception process.

Director Burke.

So and we've outlined a time frame with the city of Seattle but they need personnel in order to implement those activities and we don't have the opportunity to control what their personnel work on.

Can I ask the question a different way which is.

Should this work not complete in the summer.

Will it's will it be scheduled to still complete before the dark.

It will be scheduled to complete as soon as we have all the correct permits.

Or it can and it can continue into the school year.

Correct.

Correct.

That's the relevant school year.

Thank you.

Other questions comments concerns Director Mack.

The delay just to get some additional information that we're requesting isn't is that going to slow down your timeline in terms of getting permits or doing this work.

No it will just actually create some transparency and additional information.

We will.

We are proceeding and working with the city of Seattle but they they are controlling that process.

We don't control that process.

We are waiting for them to.

publish their decisions.

They have not published on any of these five projects that are before you tonight.

We will be probably back before you if we were to delay to the next meeting before they have published their decisions.

So we'll not be delaying the project whatsoever.

As I think everyone on this dais knows I'm a bit of a process and policy fanatic I guess.

And I if it's not going to actually slow down our actual process to do the work I'm supportive of getting the lights but I think having some of these additional questions answered doing a little bit more due diligence around it would make me more comfortable with with a yes vote than if I was required to vote on it today.

So I would I want to support Director Pinkham's delay vote.

I have a point of clarification for the makers of the motion and the seconder for now or whomever what will be presented to us in two weeks that hasn't been presented to us now because we need to give staff direction.

If you wish more transparency I think you I think we owe it to the staff to be very clear about what our expectations are deadlines etc.

Thank you for bringing that up because that is that is precisely what I think we should do if we're asking for a little bit more time.

We should be very specific.

My interest as I indicated was not to add more documents to this but to provide a connection to the community that is concerned about light pollution that what they can look at as a comparable because again I I intend to support this but I would like for the community to be supportive of it as well and for us to not.

be you know perceived as railroading it through but rather bringing folks along with us.

And it sounds like this is a better solution than what is in place at many fields.

And I would like for people to understand yes this is a better solution and we're investing wisely.

That's my hope.

So.

So what does that mean in terms of community engagement.

Help me understand what you're asking for and by when.

That would mean reaching out to community that has expressed a concern with it with exactly the information that was shared here that a comparable site would be Blanchette High School and that they should experience that personally in the evening.

And how do we communicate that out to where it hits your targets.

Community is an awfully big word.

I'm not trying to.

I would know that all of our community meetings we have highlighted the fact that they should look at the Blanchette High School installation.

So that's not new information to those folks who've attended our community meetings.

Thank you.

That's new information for me.

Director Mack and then Director Pinkham.

I think yeah if that has been shared at you know adamantly then that's good to know.

I think for me it's a joint use agreement and the clarification around what the fields will likely be used for and at what time the lights go off and that that information would be helpful to add to this.

And I don't know what form that comes in if a paragraph clarifying it or the actual joint use agreement but additional details around specifying the who's using it when and that sort of thing.

Director Pinkham.

Yeah.

Yeah.

For me it would be a follow up with the community and I guess that's a big word.

But in particular maybe Franklin and Cleveland those that came here and testified today to address their concerns.

And well particularly for Franklin where they say we wrote out on these cards to share questions said we'd have a follow up meeting after we submit these cards.

No follow up meeting.

So hopefully they'll get.

Find those cards wherever they may be.

Get those questions answered for them so that hopefully the things that their concerns that they shared are being addressed.

And then another thing I was thinking about you know you said Robert Eagle Staff will be get some lighting to as well.

And I heard some concerns raised about the utilities that were running and then where the lights are going to go is are those going to be in conflict that you may be digging 10 foot hole to put in a lighting pole but then it's right next to a gas line or right next to another utility line.

No that Director Pinkham is part of the synthetic turf field installation that was done last year.

We ran all of the conduit and we installed the caissons.

All we need to do is come and erect the poles.

OK so it's already prepared just — There would be minimal below grade work at Robert Eagle Staff.

OK.

And then I know it's going to be hard to say hey go out to Blanchett we're in June now 10 p.m.

in June is going to be different than 10 p.m.

in November and September when we may have people out there playing football.

So we might have to have people well go out to Blanchett at midnight to see what the light may be like.

But then will the lights be on at midnight at Blanchett.

I'm going for a last comment and then we need to do a roll call on the amendment.

I don't know whether or not the cards y'all collected at Franklin have folks names and addresses on them.

I don't know how we can expect our staff that has been through SEPA appeals are supposed to go out and knock on doors.

because four or five folks have have raised good concerns.

We have a shortage of land in this city.

We have a shortage of athletic fields in this city.

We are on record and celebrated state champions earlier in this meeting about athletics being the keys to success.

many of our students.

I don't think it's fair to send our staff who's already been through the SEPA appeal process which is a bear as I understand it.

That's due process and those questions were answered.

I will be voting no on the motion to continue this until June 27. I will be voting yes on the resolution when it gets to us whether it's tonight or in two weeks.

Roll call on the amendment please.

And that is to move it to June 27 for some form of community engagement that has yet to be specified that is going to happen in the next two weeks.

Director Burke.

Way to tee it up.

I'm going to go no.

It's on the amendment.

We're voting presently.

Director DeWolf.

No.

Director Mack.

Yes.

Director Patu.

Director Pinkham.

Yes.

Director Harris.

No.

This motion is not passed by a vote of two.

We are back to the main resolution roll call please.

Director Burke.

Yes.

Director DeWolf.

Yes.

Director Mack.

Yes.

Director Patu.

Yes.

Director Pinkham.

No.

Director Harris.

Yes.

This motion is passed with a vote of 5 to 1.

Thank you.

Number 8. BEX IV award construction contract P 5 1 1 6 bid number B 0 1 8 3 9 to Rhine demolition LLC for Wing Luke Elementary School replacement project phase 1. This came before Ops May 10 for.

Consideration approval of this item would provide authorization for the superintendent to enter into a construction contract and the amount of one million eight hundred fifteen thousand eight hundred seventy five dollars plus sales tax for the Wing Luke elementary school replacement project phase 1 motion please.

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute construction contract P 5 1 1 6 with Ryan demolition LLC for the Wing Luke elementary school replacement project phase 1 in the amount of one million eight hundred and fifteen thousand eight hundred and seventy five dollars plus Washington State sales tax with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary action to implement the contract.

I second the motion.

Questions comments concerns from my colleagues.

This also had a very healthy airing during intro and a very lengthy conversation if not debate in ops.

Questions Director Burke.

Just for the record knowing that this is already somewhat been covered but during the design process for this building the schematic design and detailed design was a design evaluated that included maintaining the existing addition.

Yes a design was evaluated it was not feasible to maintain that existing the newer addition it literally wraps around the existing gymnasium.

It did not allow for the expansion of the existing gymnasium.

It would have been demolished had we expanded the existing gymnasium.

Director Burke and we need to expand the existing gymnasium to meet the educational program requirements.

So it's safe to say that that the idea of maintaining of of including incorporating that existing structure was eliminated by the design team that was evaluating the program and the project.

And I personally went out there to look at that existing addition to look to see why it could not be saved.

Thank you.

Yes.

Director Mack.

Mr. Best can you refresh my memory how many times we've had this conversation about how this project has been planned and decided that because in order for these projects to move forward they come to the board multiple times.

So this this is one of those steps.

How many times before have we had the conversation around whether or not.

demolishing that was appropriate and actually building the new building was appropriate.

At least half a dozen times that we've had the conversation about whether you know that addition could be saved.

So we've we've we've talked about it six times at least and we've decided.

Repeatedly as a board that this is while maybe not ideal the most appropriate use for this building and our students.

Correct.

Just want to clarify that.

Director Pinkham.

And then true with any new building that we have to come out we have to promise that will be used as a school for so many years.

Have we met that with the prior addition.

There was no state funding so there was no commitment to utilize that addition for 30 years that we have gone through and reviewed the record on that director Pinkham.

I will also note as part of our master planning efforts on all of our projects we are looking at where we can add additions before beginning The project so we don't run into this problem again.

Yeah.

They ran into something similar with Eagle Staff where we got now new portables come from your blocking murals so we needed to do more due diligence there.

Director Burke did you have something to add sir.

Director Mack.

Roll call please.

Director Burke aye Director DeWolf yes Director Mack yes Director Patu aye Director Pinkham no Director Harris aye.

This motion is passed with a vote of 5 to 1.

OK we are at introduction.

We have two introduction items.

Please let's remember we have had two work sessions plus additional time on SMART goals.

All of which were open to the public.

Should they have chosen to come join our happy selves.

Approval of 2018 19 district SMART goals.

This came before executive committee May 17 for consideration.

Since that time we had a very robust work session.

Approval of this item would approve four SMART goals for the district in 2018 19 school year multi-tiered systems of supports also known as MTSS eliminating opportunity gaps also known as EOG secondary revisioning and engagement collaboration.

I see Erin Bennett at the box.

Please take it away.

Good evening Erin Bennett government relations and strategic initiatives and actually you said pretty much everything I was going to say.

We've had the three work sessions and have had new versions after each of those meetings and the goal owners are and their teams are behind me and we look forward to discussing these more.

I had a point of clarification and probably Assistant Superintendent Berge needs to address it.

The board came to consensus previously for three million dollar funding.

What was presented at the last work session was less than that.

I believe I said something along the lines of I really like the entrepreneurial spirit and would like to keep that three million dollar funding there.

for the goal owners to have some room in the budget to pitch new ideas to us.

Do we have three million or do we have two point something or rather.

You have the three million that you authorize the difference is placed into the reserve between the two point six and the three the difference gets put into a reserve until we have board direction.

OK.

So that means the goal owners if they've got phenomenal ideas They've got their problem statement they've got their theory of action and they've got an accountability loop can come back to this board any time during the next year and pitch to us.

Is that correct?

That's your prerogative.

Of course.

Thank you.

Comments questions concerns.

I think we beat this horse pretty big in the past and it looks to me like Superintendent Nyland would also like to address this.

Please do so.

Thank you.

I'll be brief.

Thank you to the board for moving this into this time slot.

So I guess for the listeners this becomes a major driver for everything that we do in the district.

Well I shouldn't say everything that we do in the district but.

for the heavy lift items that we do in the district.

So it will be embedded in the smart goals.

Obviously it will be embedded in the CSIPs that schools go forward with.

It's embedded in cabinet goals and evaluations it's embedded in extended cabinet goals and evaluations and By doing it now it allows us to launch that with principals in June give some time to think about it gives them an opportunity to come back in August for SLI and then allows — summer leadership Institute.

Thank you.

And then they can work with their staff as their staff come back to work in August and then the tri-day the I have no idea time responsibility and incentive day that we have before the first day of school so that staff can be on board and we can hit the ground running in the fall.

So thank you for doing due diligence on this and the three work sessions and giving marching orders to us.

And the tri-day subject matter.

Has that been chosen as yet?

I don't know that.

I believe I mean the last two days last two years and two days it's been around relationships and resiliency and going deeper on that concept.

So.

OK.

Comments questions concerns Director Burke.

I want to thank my colleagues and Superintendent Nyland and goal owners.

This is sort of the third bite at the apple for me and it's each time it gets more feels more relevant it feels like it's like we're we're truly all whether we say aligning our arrows or pulling on the flywheel or you know digging in the same way.

So it's a pretty cool thing.

I think it should become an integral part of our strategic plan work.

Director Pinkham did you have something to answer.

Yeah sorry that Director Burke has to bite in the three year old apple.

Oh applesauce.

But yeah.

Thank you to the board and staff for moving us forward with our SMART goals and Director Burke to help us.

What does SMART stand for.

He helped explain that which I just thought it was just SMART as being closed.

It's a good idea to have these but I just want to thank the staff all around the office and people up here.

Thank you for moving us forward in the right direction.

OK then.

Number two and the last item of the evening intro BEX IV approval of budget increase and award construction contract P 5 0 9 6 to Hensel Phelps construction for the Queen Anne Elementary School classroom and gymnasium addition project.

This came before Ops May 10 for approval approval of this item would approve a one time fund transfer in the amount of two million nine hundred thousand dollars.

from the BEX IV program contingency to the project budget and authorize the superintendent to enter into a construction contract in the amount of 13 million two hundred eighty three thousand dollars for the Queen Anne Elementary School classroom and gymnasium addition project.

A personal plea.

I was chair of Audit and Finance.

I worked really hard trying to understand the shifting of funds between BEX and and all of that.

At some point can we start doing pictographs and and be advised when the funds are returned after we've transferred them in keeping with our increased transparency.

I understand that we have to move money.

I understand that we're doing it right and we're passing our audits but if we could figure out a way to show that or show the flow that would help me immensely explaining this kind of information to folks that ask.

To the public.

Yes yes we can definitely provide that information to you Director Harris because it's what I use to track our projects.

So.

Director Mack.

I second that.

That is something that I've been trying to get a better handle on as well.

And the document that's provided to the BEX BTA oversight committee actually does show that information a little bit more clearly.

So it's a good conversation to have about how that gets folded into the reports that come to Ops and the budget.

So.

That's teed up and thank you.

Pleasure.

Other questions comments concerns.

Director DeWolf.

Hey listen I'm trying to get you out of here.

Have at it.

Go for it please.

I know we're sensing we might be kind of dialing down here.

I just want to remind folks that on Friday 11 a.m.

MLK and Rainier the event for Ryan Dela Cruz and and gun safety in our community.

Okay that's good of the order.

You're out of order.

Does anybody have.

You're out of order for all the right reasons.

Next question.

Does anybody have comments questions concerns to the intro item on the table presently seeing none.

Good of the order.

Go for it.

Director DeWolf.

Right.

This Friday 11 a.m.

at the corner of MLK and Rainier with folks from South End and Franklin families and community partners just celebrating the life of Rondella Cruz and also calling for gun responsibility in our communities.

And again Nate Van Duzer you rock.

Thank you ever so much.

And you will miss us and you can do international peace after you've done this.

We are adjourned at 8 to 55.