School Board Meeting Date March 16th, 2016 Pt2

Are you ready?

She's going to go ahead and read.

Our first action items amending board procedure 3520BP student fees and charges.

I move that the board amend board procedure 3520BP as attached to this board action report.

Immediate action is in the best interest of the district.

I second the motion.

I want to call on the committee chair.

This was brought to the Audit and Finance Committee on March 10 and the committee reviewed the item and moved it forward for consideration by the full board.

I would like to point out it is an introduction and action item.

Any questions on his items?

Director Burke.

I was wondering if you could speak to the basis for the introduction action for the

I would ask staff to come forward and explain that please.

Good evening.

Well you know in the state biannual budget there is provided for full funding of the 4 day kindergarten and even though the legislature sessions has not ended yet, there is no indication that there will be any change to that.

There is nothing in the Governor's or the Senate or the House's budget that will change that so it looks like it is not going to change at all.

But this will really help the parents to make the decisions earlier and avoid a confusion at the last minute.

You should introduce yourself for the record.

Barry Choi, the district interim accounting manager.

Thank you.

I guess what I'm trying to understand is the timing justification.

The fact that it's for introduction and action.

Is there a particular time constraint that we need to put this in place for some sort of downstream process?

Well, because the earlier the parents know about it, then they can start making their changes now until before it gets to the summertime.

If they change it at summertime, then it would cause a lot more confusion for the school planning and the parents' choices of school.

if we don't do the action today we will wait another month for action so there will be another month of delay.

Thank you.

Any more questions or comments from directors?

Ms. Foley for the vote.

Director Pinkham.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

This motion is passed unanimously.

Okay we are going to go into our amendment number two.

Amending policy number 3246 and repealing policy number 3247.

I move that the school board amend policy number 3246 as attached to the board action report and repeal policy number 3247.

I second that motion.

Call on the committee chair.

C&I.

I would be happy to do that for you.

It was heard on, the motion was discussed on November 9, December 14, 2015, January 11, and February 8, 2016. On February 8 the committee reviewed the motion and recommended that it move forward for consideration, for full consideration by the full board.

Thank you.

Is there any questions or comment on this item?

Director Geary.

Again when it came in introduction I will thank our team for taking the time to move beyond a standard policy given to us from outside of our district.

So kudos to you all.

And I just want to read it is the policy of the Seattle school board that the district maintains a safe learning environment while treating all students with dignity and respect.

And those are just words that with every person that comes before us if we can remember that that is the first thing that we're going to be doing then I think we will be making policies that will work for our parents, our students, our teachers and your board members.

And I think for our whole district.

So thank you again.

Director Harris.

Ditto to what fellow director Geary had to say and also I would like to thank members of the public that brought information in and work collaboratively and help fashion something we can be proud of.

And that's that's the way it's supposed to work.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions?

Ms. Foley, the vote.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

This motion is passed unanimously.

Okay for action item number three.

City of Seattle Preschool Program but I notice that there are two amendments for this item.

We will discuss the amendments prior to voting on the original motion.

However, as there have been changes to the original motion since the introduction we will first ask Cashel Toner to come up and briefly speak to the changes and then we will discuss the amendments.

Okay City of Seattle Department of Education and Early Learning Seattle preschool program service agreement amendment 2016-2017.

I move that the board authorize the superintendent to accept Seattle preschool program grant funds from the City of Seattle Department of Education and Early Learning in the amount of $1,464,775.60 current three classroom costs plus estimated costs for four new classrooms.

to authorize the superintendent to enter into an agreement to the service agreement with the City of Seattle Department of Education and Early Learning to continue operating three Seattle preschool program classrooms and add four new classrooms in fall 2016 in the form of the draft agreement attached to the board action report with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary steps to implement this action.

I second the motion.

Okay this did come up to the executive committee and the executive committee actually.

There was no recommendation on this because we were waiting for them to have the workshops so we can actually be able to hear more about how they were going to actually move it forward and we also needed to hear what was happening with the present preschools that are already in existence.

We are going to go ahead then and I realize that there is two amendments that are on this item but before we do that we will have Keshia come up and tell us.

Good evening I am Keshia Toner the Director of Early Learning for Seattle Public Schools.

I first want to take a pause and thank our city partners who are here this evening and the principals that are here and thank the board for your engagement and your time.

visiting most of the classrooms so thank you for that.

Okay briefly I'm going to summarize the changes from the bar that was presented and talk about those things.

So we refined the options so that was one major change in the bar.

We revised the budget to reflect the change of three classrooms and continuing the four.

We updated the milestone section to reflect that we have actually earned another milestone so originally it was five now we are up to six.

And then we also responded to board feedback around including a chart showing enrollment projections so that section was added as well.

So that summarizes the changes made to the BAR.

Is there any questions or comments?

Now to the amendments.

Do I have a motion for amendment number one?

Director Geary.

I move the school board amend the motion for action item number three city of Seattle Department of Education and early learning Seattle preschool program service agreement amendment 2016-17 to include the following.

In addition the board asks that the superintendent form a task force by May 15, 2016 to make recommendations by December 15, 2016 for the 2017-18 classroom service agreement.

The 2016-17 classroom service agreement shall be modified to reflect the formation of the task force and its charge as set forth below.

The task force would be asked to make recommendations to the superintendent regarding but not limited to B, the elimination of the 25% performance hold back.

B, an affirmation statement of both parties of their commitment to creating preschools in Seattle that seek out and welcome students regardless of their race, socioeconomic status, social emotional learning needs or academic ability.

C, the purposeful outreach to families with specific intent of creating classrooms with a diverse student population with varying abilities regardless of whether the classrooms are operated by the district or other community-based organizations.

D, the development of special education inclusion preschool classrooms consistent with the district's goal of offering at a minimum a continuum of educational placements within each middle school feeder area.

E, a plan for coordination and engagement between SPP classrooms and the district's developmental preschool classrooms.

F, assessment of the financial impact that the preschool classrooms have on the K-12 buildings.

And finally G, any other provisions that the task force identifies as necessary to create high quality and equitable preschools.

Second that motion.

Okay.

Okay.

Prior to discussing amendment one I would note that amendment number two amends amendment number one.

Therefore I will now ask if there is a motion for amendment number two.

Yes there is.

Okay.

Amendment to the amendment.

So I ask Director Peters would you speak to amendment number two and why it has been offered.

Well I will read the motion first.

I move the school board amend the motion language for amendment number one for action item number three as follows.

One add the following language the school board requires the elimination of the city's 25% performance hold back stipulation by the start of the 2017-18 school year And two, remove the reference to the elimination of the 25% performance hold back from the task force's charge.

Second the motion.

I will now speak to this amendment.

All right.

Well in the years since this first came to us a lot has developed in terms of this program and many of us have had the opportunity to go visit the classrooms.

I was able to visit all three of the current classrooms that the district is operating within the city's program and I was impressed with what I saw.

So one of the issues, there have been a couple of issues that have been sticking points on this.

One of them has to do with capacity.

Do we have space that we can assign to preschool?

And that is an ongoing discussion.

But the other one is the financial agreement associated with this pre-K arrangement with the city.

And the city has a stipulation that it will provide funding but it will guarantee 75% of the funding, it will guarantee paying the district 75% but it will reserve the right to withhold 25% based on whether or not the district meets performance measures.

And so this has been something that directors have, the previous board as well as this current board, some members have been troubled about because it says it essentially amounts to us, the district agreeing to provide services but not necessarily having a guarantee of 100% financial reimbursement for those services.

So, what this motion does is state that starting in 2017-18 which is going to be the third year of the district participating in this program we would like the 25 hold back to be no longer in place.

We would like to be reimbursed 100% for our services rendered in this program.

and also in light of the fact that we are also providing space for the program at no charge and I believe this is a fiscally responsible development for us.

And so where this fits in is this is an amendment to the amendment that Director Geary and Harris brought forth and so it It includes all of the language they have about inclusion and other things but it makes the elimination of the 25% hold back something that we will require in a year from this fall.

So the other point I want to add is you know as a chair of the Audit and Finance Committee I am particularly concerned about the district's finances.

No progress has been made on McCleary.

The per pupil inflator is still at risk so we run the risk of having a $6 million shortfall next year because of that.

We have the levy cliff to worry about and so anything that puts any of our resources at risk is of concern to me.

So what I am interested in doing is safeguarding our resources as much as possible.

Now when this first proposal came to us last year we were talking about a total amount of about $600,000.

This year we are talking about $1.4 million.

And so 25% hold back of that becomes a more significant sum.

It becomes $366,000 that the district potentially might not be reimbursed for if we don't meet certain performance measures.

And so I maintain that if we are to have a true partnership with the city of mutual respect and equality that we should be accepting and requiring full payment for our services rendered.

I believe the district has and will continue to make a good faith effort to deliver the on the agreement and provide the finest preschool experience it possibly can.

And there is no reason for the city to withhold these funds.

The other point I would like to make is currently the backup source for these funds has been cited as the grant that the district received from the Gates Foundation.

That grant will eventually run out.

It is for $750,000.

We are already in the second year of that grant.

We are now looking at a potential hold back of 366,000.

We may run out of resources to fill in that withholding.

So all I am trying to do is add a safeguard measure to this whole plan that safeguards the district's resources.

And I think that is all I need to say on this point.

Is there any questions Director Geary?

I have a comment.

Go ahead.

I think this amendment should be considered seriously because when I was on the campaign trail one of the issues that came up was Sandpoint elementary school.

And the city Department of Education and early learning had engaged in an agreement with that community and one of the conditions was that they keep their principal.

And so they had a year to plan for the $300,000 and they had spent that year and the principal then got at the end of the year an offer to go do something on the East Coast that was very worthwhile and he couldn't refuse it.

And so after a whole year of planning for Sandpoint Elementary because this principal had left the city came in and said we are going to withhold the money.

And so it threw the whole community into chaos.

They protested on the streets.

And ultimately we as a district we weren't obligated to come in and backfill but our school was in chaos and ultimately the city came and filled in the money.

So I could most certainly foresee should an event happen whereby the 25% hold back isn't in place and Seattle Public Schools doesn't have the funds necessarily to fill back in we will once again be in a situation where our preschool families are out with signs saying don't take away our preschool.

And will it be directed at the district or will it be directed at the city?

I don't think it really matters.

What it is is a unforeseen unpredicted condition that may throw a bunch of families into chaos because of a contract provision that probably ultimately we will all concede We are going to maintain the preschool for the families and we have to find the funding and the city will be most likely the source of the funding.

So in reality I don't know at the end of the day if this is something that anybody is going to be willing to enforce as we go forward.

So we have a year to plan for that, to think about that.

But we don't want the conditions changing.

I don't want my families out on corners because of a 25% hold back and because Seattle Public Schools no longer has money to come in and backfill.

Director Blanford.

I have a couple of process questions before I will make any comment.

I am wondering, I note first the fact that I received this amendment as I walked in the door here today this afternoon.

And I'm very concerned about the transparency issue.

There was some conversation on the dais about the importance of transparency and so I will caution my colleagues that creating amendments on the fly like this is not the way to do business.

It puts us in a very difficult situation where we don't have time to review the provisions of amendments and it seems to me to not be the right way to do business.

My first question has to do with has this received legal review and I look to our new general counsel for that answer.

Good evening Noel Treat, General Counsel.

Director Blanford, legal review in terms of the content of the amendment itself or more of a process kind of legal review.

My assumption is that most things that come before us have passed muster as far as what we are allowed to do, what we are not allowed to do and that's my line of questioning has more to do with that because it is, inserting language into our partnership agreement that in my mind may not actually pass muster with the city.

Right and so we did work closely with other directors on this proposed amendment today.

And as to the partnership agreement this wouldn't amend the partnership agreement that's in front of us now that for you to vote on or consider voting on tonight.

This is for this 2017-18 agreement.

But certainly we can't as a district mandate a change in that agreement we can bring this issue forward and then try and negotiate it with the city for the next agreement and that's the process I would foresee if this amendment were to pass.

So if you can and I may be asking you to do something that you are not capable of doing but I know because I've had conversations with senior folks in the city who are very firm on the 25% hold back.

What I've been told is that it is mandated as a result of the legislation that was approved by the voters.

That there is accountability measures built into the authorizing language for a levy that funds this proposal.

And that being the case I wonder if this is a poison pill, if this puts us in a position where they won't be able to fund us going forward after 2017 and if so then what is our obligation with regard to that?

Yeah well certainly that's something we can look more closely at.

When I looked at the city legislation I didn't see 25% hold back as a mandate in city code as adopted by the voters but I have heard the same thing you've experienced which is that the city feels very strongly about this provision so we may have some difficult negotiations ahead if this amendment were to pass for that 2017-18 agreement but we'll certainly reconfirm as part of that process that there isn't any other legal consideration on city code or voter approval side that we need to take into account.

And thank you for that correction around the 25%.

I didn't see that in the legislation but I did see very strong language around accountability for any providers that are involved in the provision of preschool.

Yeah it's clear in the legislation that there have to be performance measures and oversight by the city but whether they do that with a 25% hold back or through other mechanisms I think there's an opening there for conversation.

And so that prompts the question are there any exceptions in the legislation that you saw that would allow a provider, say Seattle Public Schools, to not operate under that, under the accountability measures?

I think in general they say there need to be accountability measures in place for the providers.

I don't think it spells out in detail exactly what those need to be so I think there is some room probably for discussion around what our specific agreement needs to look like.

Okay but there will be some measure of accountability no matter what.

I believe so yes.

So thank you for that I appreciate your legal opinions on that and I think that helps to reinforce my belief that this is a bad amendment in a lot of different ways.

We have heard testimony from the city.

Attesting to the value of the not necessarily the 25% but the value of having some accountability measures and that they don't have a lot of discretion around that.

So that being the case I don't know why we would amend our language, we would tell you as a negotiator with the city that we expect that that 25% would be removed.

And so I plan to vote against this amendment.

Director Harris.

I appreciate the comments of both of my colleagues.

I'll be voting against this amendment for a couple of reasons.

One I'm a pragmatist and I think that the 25 percent hold back which I have been consistently pushing back on with everyone from Mayor Ed Murray to the godfather of the Seattle pre-K partnership Tim Burgess and the good Seattle folks here in the room.

I don't like it.

I don't want to be the city's bank.

I don't believe that measures of accountability or 25 percent holdbacks if we don't do the job you don't renew the contract.

It's how the rest of the world works.

I don't like it but I think that the proper place for this to be addressed is in the task force.

And when trying to fashion this amendment number one collaboratively with our staff and with the good folks at the city I don't feel that I can back up now working as a partner in making that collaboration with amendment one and vote for amendment 2. I don't like it.

I hope that the task force recommends getting rid of it and if not I hope to lobby my friends on the Seattle City Council to get rid of it.

But I think it's inappropriate for today since we are making progress and I'd like to think as Mr. Rogers says it's a new day in the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Director Geary.

I also have a question for council.

I am curious having just lived through the whole inclusion conversation about the EEU that for if for some reason we came across a time when we didn't have sort of an insurance pool which I have been told we have now and the 25% withholding they continue, it's not forthcoming.

and all of a sudden we are supposed to be spending K through $12 on preschool.

Do we have that authority?

Well that's actually I don't know the full answer to that question I might turn to some of my budget folks there who might have a better answer.

What I do know is there is state statute that authorizes school districts to have preschool programs.

That legislation does say that if federal and state funds are insufficient we can supplement with school general fund but I don't know if there are additional restrictions on that money for pre-k.

So let me turn it over to our Deputy Superintendent.

Stephen Nielsen Deputy Superintendent.

There are some specific restrictions around many of the resources we receive.

The green view if you will on what's open would be the levy resources we receive from our local voters so that would be the funding source that would be able to be used for this and is also very similar to many others.

Now that doesn't mean we would use the levy dollars I'm saying that from a technical view That is where we would be paying for the cash to run it until we are reimbursed on 25%.

That is not any different than the multiple grants that we get.

For example all of our SPI grants that come through SPI which is a completely separate issue but to your point those are all reimbursables which means that we use our cash to do the work and when the work is done we are reimbursed.

So this would be falling into that same technical view at the macro level.

I hope that helps you.

Well it gets a little bit to Mr. Jackins point that yes through K-12 I can understand that dynamic because our funds have been allocated for K-12 services so money being fungible we can shift it around.

But do we have the same leeway to shift around our preschool, our K-12 dollars to cover a preschool deficit.

Yes in the same way that you have the ability to do things that are outside of the definition of basic education and there are many in the district.

So it's a wonderful question and it's applicable both here and in many other things that we do.

And so my next question is then why haven't we been using those dollars to put more general ed kids in special education, in creating our own inclusive preschool classes?

And so apparently what we've been led to believe on some level in terms of the limitations of doing that now seems to be seems to be squishy or up in the air.

I just don't understand.

Well I don't think that that's what I was trying to say before so that's a long budget discussion.

No I know you're not trying to say that but I'm trying to make things consistent from one issue to another in what is told to me so that I can make reasonable decisions up here.

And I just want to make sure, I was under the impression that we didn't have that ability to backfill in on preschool with general ed K-12 dollars.

Not with general ed K-12 dollars.

That is correct.

But with our total resources that we have we can.

Right.

And we've identified and we don't need to have identified that to the voters prior to getting that money?

No.

Any more questions or comments?

Director Peters.

So I just want to reiterate that this amendment does not affect the agreement for this year.

It would affect the following year 2017-18 and it would allow the district and the city 18 months to negotiate an agreement that better matches the fiscal responsibilities of the board, Seattle school board.

I'd also like to point out that 25% holdback was not included in the MOU that the school board was voted on a year ago and that stipulation was not brought before the board and when it was first brought to us it was in an executive committee and I remember distinctly that the members of the board then were surprised by this stipulation.

So it's not been something that we negotiated with the city it is something that we inherited and we would like to have an opportunity to correct this as we move forward.

But again we are talking about 18 months from now.

Director Burke.

I was hoping to clarify for my understanding and anyone else who may still be confused around it.

The pieces at play here we have a funding request which is an annual approval We have a SPS and city agreement which looks to me like it's dated shall be for the period commencing upon adoption and ending on August 31st 2019. Can you identify where in the in the chain of documents is this committee, the work of this committee, or the implementation of this amendment would have to take place.

Which governing document needs to be renegotiated or revised?

Just to make sure I understand your question, I think you want to understand how the task force's work and recommendation would fit into the contractual relationship and what the timing would need to be for that to work.

So the answer to that is right now you've got an agreement that is sort of renewed annually and It calls upon, the agreement as drafted right now calls upon the parties to come together in March of each year and have an amendment and extension agreed to at that point in time.

So I think ideally what you'd want to do would be to have the task force's recommendation and then whatever renegotiation might be necessary with the city occur by next year at this time so that we could then present to the board the 2017-18 agreement with whatever new provisions had been agreed to.

Thank you.

I am curious there were some questions about the Gates grant and whether or not it evaporates over time or it goes away.

And as I remember our conversations about this new work at the beginning my understanding was the grant just kind of renews so it is a pocket of money that we have until we would need to use it.

I'm seeing Cashel Toner nod her head so I'm assuming that that understanding is correct.

So initially it was a three-year grant.

We are in the second year of that grant.

We haven't accessed the full grant funds every year for a variety of other reasons.

So next year is technically the third year of the grant.

Our grantors have been very flexible in helping us cultivate this partnership so we haven't had a conversation with them about continuing further right now in the situation where we are asking for agreement for this upcoming school year with grant funds available for the upcoming school year.

So at the end of the third year if we have not used the funds that have been allocated to us by the Gates Foundation do they call those funds back?

So and forgive my limited understanding here but there is a pocket of money that the Gates Foundation has given to us to use for pre-K services.

We have said that that money will be allocated to shore up any deficiency that comes, the 25%.

and that money just sits in the bank.

I assume it doesn't accrue interest but it's our money.

Director, Superintendent Nyland.

Let me clarify.

Try anyway.

I apologize this is kind of a surprise we were prepared to deal with this at our last couple of sessions and didn't know that was going to be coming up in advance of tonight.

We actually are using in this year, a portion of the Gates grant to pay our 25%.

So we are using it.

That means that when we get the money from the city at the end of the year, we're going to be at 125% of the cost of this year's program.

So we will have banked if you will the money that we had from the Gates Foundation to cover the 25% at the start of this year.

So Ken Gotch has set that up in a reserve so we have that money sitting in the bank against any potential futures.

So at some point we will use up the Gates grant but we will convert it to the reserve and we probably have a variety of opinions on what that means and how big of a reserve we need.

We now have half of a year a little bit more under our belt and we know that we are on track to get so far.

all of the money from the city.

So we don't believe that the risk is ever 25% of the entire amount however big the grant grows.

The history from the city's 25% funding methodology for our families and education levy and other providers has been They would give warning through the year if we were not on track.

They would give advance notice that we would have more time to meet the indicators.

And we might even grant the full funding one year if we didn't meet, I mean if we met 97% of the targets.

They might say great, but you're going to have to do better.

next year so there is a risk but it is their way of ensuring that we are meeting our performance targets.

So because of the Gates grant that we currently have the funds that we already are holding from them we believe well we know that we have covered any risk for the full 25% for the foreseeable future and we believe that we will have covered the more pragmatic portion of any potential, I don't want to say that, I don't mean potential as in we lose control of everything and don't meet any of their milestones.

If we were to meet one of their milestones, miss one of their milestones, which I don't anticipate, we would have plenty of money in reserve for the small portion that they would withhold because we had missed one of the milestones.

And I appreciate those comments because I think that they make the point very eloquently that there is risk associated with this grant but it is very low risk and we heard testimony at our last board meeting about both the performance measures and how attainable they are as well as we had one person come up and speak very eloquently I thought that we are losing sight of the forest for the trees.

And you know the evidence is overwhelming that this program is beneficial to the students that we are serving and if we are serious about our achievement and opportunity gaps it is one of the best strategies that we can use to address that issue.

And so losing sight of the forest for the trees and all of that, it strikes me that this 25% hold back is a distraction and I think we have lots of work to do to ensure that we have the capacity, that we are ensuring the quality of the program and so I strongly oppose this amendment and I hope that we can move forward with the program in full.

Director Burke.

I agree with the comments Director Blanford made about this being a distraction.

I think it is.

I don't believe that we need to put high stakes financial barriers on programs especially such ones that have such passion behind them and are demonstrating success.

Unfortunately we have those.

So I would like to see us not have those.

I'd like to see us not have the 25 percent hold back.

But I understand the pragmatic approach.

I also understand that our our risk is essentially mitigated for multiple years not perpetuity in any way.

But I also understand that we have an option for annual renewal and I believe that under the proposed amendment we have a pathway towards potentially eliminating or renegotiating this 25% and for that reason I am planning to not support this amendment.

Director Geary.

Considering the comments made I would like us to think if we do go to the original amendment in terms of the charge to revisit the 25% withhold to keep in mind that as the program grows that 25% will grow as well and at some point whatever reserve we have won't cover that 25%.

So potentially something that a task force could look at is a way to take that into consideration in terms of capping the financial risk so that should we come up against a time where for whatever reason the conditions have changed and somebody has left and you know due to nobody's fault and we have a huge hole in the budget.

that we don't set our families into chaos.

So looking at those contingencies and making sure that we have something that is consistent for our families regardless of the funding source or who is holding you know the stick.

And that we can keep our eye on creating carrots for this policy.

Any comments or questions?

I would like to say that I hear all the pluses and the minuses in terms of this amendment but you know I believe that you are always prepared for things that you never know what is going to happen.

So you know I looked at, this is something that we have been talking about why the 25% when we are providing spaces and also all the support that we can provide.

I believe that 25% because we never know when we are going to be able to continue on to depend on Gates Foundation.

I know the money is going to be reserved and it is going to be built up.

But this program is expanding.

As the program expands the funds get higher.

So we never know the ifs and the whens so I am going to support this amendment.

So Ms. Fovey the vote please.

So we are going to vote on amendment number two.

Director Pinkham.

Nay.

Director Blanford.

Nay.

Director Burke.

Nay.

Director Geary.

Nay.

Director Harris.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

This motion is not passed by a vote of 2 to 0, I mean 2 to 5.

Now we will return to the discussion of amendment number one.

I want to call for questions or comments on the original motion.

Okay.

Director Gary R. Harris would you like to speak on amendment number one and why it's been offered?

I think this is a good solution.

It's been worked on collaboratively.

And I wrote down a couple of comments that I heard during the last discussion.

It's benefiting the students we're serving.

Well what about the students we're not serving.

This addresses that.

We have got.

to include our differently abled young people and give them the same opportunities.

There is something very wrong with having side-by-side classrooms with different opportunities just based on the funding sources.

We can't be against this.

This is like being against moms and apple pies.

I believe our city partners agree with us and this brings us a structure with the expertise of this school district to really really make it happen in a quality way.

And I think this is a solution we can be extraordinarily proud of.

Thank you.

Any questions, comments?

Director Geary.

I want to thank Director Harris, Cashel Toner, Wyatt Jesse, Steve Nielsen, Erin Bennett, and John Cerqui for stepping up very quickly to help me with this over a very long weekend for all of us.

that we are able to weave something like this in especially on the tail end of the EEU situation and start seeing ways that we can create inclusion.

And maybe we are just starting at the preschool level but it is my vision that we will work up once we have a great inclusion preschool throughout our city that we will have no choice but to continue to build it up all throughout the city so that we will never be dependent on one program in one place to provide a service that is so critical to our city and our families.

So thank you everybody for your willingness and thank you to the city as well for sharing that vision for our kids.

Director Blanford.

I have a question for the authors of the amendment.

The first recommendation that is listed that the task force would be responsible for is the topic that we just discussed the elimination of the 25% performance holdback.

So I'm curious given the decision that was made on that last amendment does that have any impact on this?

I think it goes back to my comment, I mean that is something to be, it is something for the task force to consider.

I think looking at the realities of the growth of the program, the risk that is being assumed by either party, the history of performance, that is something, if what we are looking for is accountability measures, if that is what is required then why must it be that accountability measure and so I would like that provision to remain on the task force so that creative solutions, limitations, massaging it so that the risk is shared and that again we don't end up in a situation as we did at Sandpoint where a great deal of anxiety was created for families that ended up being for nothing because the city finally did come through but it was all triggered on one of these accountability measures.

So let's make sure that we have a set of accountability measures that will work in the long run for our families because we know as we grow this program it's not something we are going to be able to roll back.

Our families will require it and we will want to give it to them of course.

So let's make sure it's right and the risk is properly distributed.

Director Harris.

Additionally the task force would be the place where we can vet the law of unintended consequences.

And if I thought for a second we could get rid of the 25% and include inclusion, you betcha.

But pragmatically could not get there.

Absolutely can't.

And there are other ways to get there if that becomes a sticking point.

It's not in the ordinance.

It's not in the MOU.

It's something that should be discussed from all different directions.

And I'm really hesitant to make that kind of policy up here without understanding the law of unintended consequences.

If I can follow up I appreciate those two comments.

I think given the conversation that we just had before that one of the issues that we face is as the program grows we have a finite amount of resource that we can allocate towards that 25%.

And so at some point we will be at greater risk because we don't have enough money to cover the 25% if the program grows.

So in my mind that might be the thing for the committee to be working on.

Again, I will just reiterate that those who are in charge of the city's pre-K program funds have made it abundantly clear that they do not want to change the language of that 25%.

So, I think if I were to charge this task force I would charge them with how can we to grow the size of our reserve so that we can accommodate any deficiencies or any lack of funding that comes in from the city.

I think that might be a more useful task for this group.

And the other piece is particularly the part about inclusion.

I believe that Absolutely, you are right Director Harris that we have to serve all of our students and if there are issues around inclusion of our special needs students that we need to double down on that and so if there is a task force that can make some recommendations that help us to get there I am fully supportive of that.

I am not sure where I land on the idea that 25% because I am opposed to the idea that we somehow get a pass.

when I think about my, when I think about the legislation or the ordinance around pre that the 25% performance holdback is a distraction and we need to move forward with the pieces that we do have control over and so I don't know if I am offering the opportunity for a friendly amendment to redirect the 25% recommendation or requirement.

Well first of all this drafter would not consider that a friendly amendment.

Fair enough.

And with respect to the 25% this is a task force and the beauty of democracy is that the powers that be at the City of Seattle have shifted greatly with district elections and perhaps I am the eternal optimist I must be I'm sitting here We're working together with the city on an educational summit on August 30th.

Mayor Ed did not throw me out of his office when I brought this up.

We can work together.

We can get through it.

Accountability can look like ever so many things.

Why 25 percent has been set up as as some kind of impenetrable barrier is beyond me.

And I get that people have very strong feelings.

Goodness knows I do as well.

But we can work this out.

Thank you.

I just want to remind you that the mayor said he is not responsible for the 25%.

Any more questions or comments?

Director Pinkham.

Yeah I want to thank Director Geary and Director Harris for bringing this forward because yeah part of this all we talk about is transparency and we are going to get this money and what are we going to do with it?

Well we need to involve the community and the parents that were up here saying yes we want our pre-K program preschool program well let's put them up to it too, okay help us out, make sure we are doing this properly, getting things going.

And the provisions that we have, we are not saying that the task force is to eliminate, we are asking hopefully to look at it.

We need to look at how we can make sure the school district isn't taking on the big risk.

How much risk is the city willing to take on?

Would they do it backwards, hey give us 100% and if we don't meet it we will give you back 25%.

So there are other ways to be able to look at this so that again the risk isn't all just on the school district.

We are collaborating with the city of Seattle to do this and again I just appreciate that we have this foresight.

We need to get involved, get back and talk to them again about hey how can we do this differently.

Let's work together and as we get the support of our parents and the children in school I think we can positively move forward with this.

Director Burke.

I want to thank my board colleagues as well for their amendments.

Both of them because I think there's some really important aspects that are addressed in the first amendment and I believe the second amendment has taken us to a level of discussion that's pretty imperative to show how important this is to the board because I think that does guide the work of any sort of task force.

I see the apple pie sort of approval for pre-K as pretty unanimous and the challenge is how do we take care of some of these things that are potential long-term sticking points.

I'm going to be just a little out of order in talking about a range of things.

One of them is continuity.

Do we have the space in our buildings?

And I believe this is pretty well addressed by the work that staff has done updating the amended motion or the amended bar with a table that shows the capacity of our buildings.

We have buildings that are really space impacted.

We have others that are not and this is a great resource for those that are not as space impacted.

We don't want to put something in place that a year or two years from now we have to pull.

Our families expect that we have.

enough foresight that we're implementing things that can provide some stability to families.

So I believe the continuity has been addressed pretty well by staff.

The amendment I think does an excellent job addressing how we get inclusion, how we bring that discussion into it.

The 25% funding I think that discussion has also been had and I expect it will be had again next year and I hope that we have recommendations from a task force to help us inform that discussion in a prudent fashion.

The amendment also addresses concerns about space costs and our buildings are funded by a K-12 tax base but yet as we grow the pre-K program this is outside the K-12 tax base so we have to consider the impact to our capital costs.

And I guess I plan to support this amendment and I look forward to our educators demonstrating in the next year how this 25% is far less of a challenge far less of an issue that for both the district and the city.

Director Peters.

Well I would also like to thank my colleagues Jill Geary and Leslie Harris for bringing forth a very thoughtful amendment.

I know a lot of care was put into this and it covers a lot of different points and you reminded us all to think beyond you know standard definitions of children and children's needs and I think this amendment will make this a richer program, it will strengthen what we are trying to do and I think it will meet the mission and goals of both the city and the district very nicely.

You know one of my concerns about this program about the city's program was I wasn't sure what it would look like side-by-side with some of our special education pre-Ks and that's one of the reasons I was interested to visit old Van Asselt as well as Van Asselt I'm sorry original Van Asselt.

And what I saw were classrooms that looked very similar I was pleased to see that in terms of the facilities but the idea of integrating the children as well I think that takes us to another level.

And so while I consider a task force a more moderate approach to coming to conclusions I believe it is better than not looking at some of these important issues so I thank you for that component of your amendment as well and I will be very happy to support it.

Director Blanford.

I forgot in my remarks to thank Mr. Darin who is in the back who I assume that some of us got a chance to see his classroom.

I know I got a chance to see it in October and it was one of the more inspiring things that I have seen since becoming a school board director.

So thank you for being here today.

Any more comments?

Also I would like to thank our two directors who actually came up with this amendment because it really points out to a lot of our students that a lot of times are left out of the inclusion and having this amendment actually opens up to every child to have the opportunity to be a part of this preschool so thank you very much for that.

So now we are going to have Ms. Fobey for the vote.

on amendment 2 as amended.

Oh, I'm sorry, amendment number 1 as amended.

Okay, we're calling the vote for amendment number 1. Ms. Foti.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

This amendment has passed unanimously.

I will now call for any questions or comments on the original motion as amended.

Director Burke.

I just want to put one more statement out there, sorry.

I think there has been some discussion around the long-term value of pre-K and I just want to reaffirm from my point of view and I call to my colleagues and all of the educational experts out there that we take the benefits that come from pre-K and we turn them into long-term sustained gains by making sure we have awesome programs in our K-12.

Any more comments?

Questions?

I want to ask Ms. Foley for the roll call.

Vote on the action item number 3.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

Now we are going to go into our action items.

I can find it.

Action number four, McDonald international school 2016-17 annual fund for language immersion instructional assistant IAs.

I move that the school board approve the acceptance and use of PTA annual fund monies up to $414,000 to pay for language immersion instructional assistants IAs and language immersion interns at McDonald international school for the 2016-17 school year.

I second the motion.

Can I let the chairperson.

Oh yes this went to Audit and Finance and we recommended to move it to the full board I believe for consideration because of the issues surrounding the nature of this request which is you know accepting a significant amount of funding for our schools from our families in order to sustain a program that the district began.

But didn't sustainably fund.

So are there any questions?

Comments?

Ms. Foley?

Director Harris.

I'm sorry.

This and issue number five John Stanford international school funds ties my guts up in knots.

To expect our parents to raise over $400,000 to keep programs running that we started and we do not sustainably fund is morally difficult for me to address.

I thought long and hard about bringing in an amendment that said we are going to stop this practice in two years but again I am a pragmatist and I didn't want it to slop over to the Seattle pre-K amendment because let's be real this is politics and perception.

But we as a board need to take a stand before we do another one of these votes next March for programs that we started when I say we I mean the Seattle Public School District and we do not sustain.

And this is not the only type of this program that we have and I sound like I am lecturing and I certainly do not mean to.

But we have got to have the intestinal fortitude to stop this.

We also need to start planning if we ever do get any McCleary money how it is that we are going to prioritize and use it and that planning starts now.

Thank you.

Okay Ms. Fodey.

The vote.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Reluctantly aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

John Stanford international school JSIS 2016-17 annual fund for language immersion instructional assistant.

I move that the school board approve the acceptance and use of PTSA annual fund monies up to $450,000 to pay for language immersion instructional assistants at John Stanford international school for the 2016-17 school year.

I second the motion.

Any questions or comments?

Director Blanford.

I will just interject the committee recommendation.

This motion was discussed at the Audit and Finance Committee on February 11, 2016. The committee reviewed the item and moved it forward for consideration by the full board for the reasons stated for the previous item.

Thank you.

I just wanted to make the comment I apologize for not being here for it I've been drinking too much tea but I wanted to say that thank you to the parents who are taking on this responsibility regardless of the conversations about equity We also recognize that it's a heavy lift that they have undertaken and I want to publicly be on record as being appreciative of that fact.

As a parent of an immersion student I know the benefit of our immersion programs.

I know it personally because I see it every day with my daughter.

And I know that there are lots of families throughout the city who benefit and some parents are willing to take on the burden of providing instructional assistance.

They should be applauded for that work and so I publicly want to be on record as being appreciative of their work.

Director Geary.

without taking anything away from those parents it is hard not to think about all the parents who wish they could give and offer these kinds of services to their kids and because where they are and they don't have access to these schools they can't get there and if they just don't have money to pump up the programs for their kids and that is a really hard thing and it is an equity issue.

And so all the lip service that we give to equity this is one that is hard and even some of the schools have come to me and said could you just please cap them at a level so that we just don't feel like we are the ugly stepchild.

And you know maybe that is a conversation for next year.

Director Burke.

since the conversation is going.

This discussion mirrors a similar discussion that took place at one of my community meetings.

And there is very clear and I even say the word blatant equity issues around this.

There is also, this is where we talk about unintended consequences as well.

We have passionate dedicated community members that are advocating for their kids in an arena where we are not providing enough funding or the state is not providing enough funding or there is a perception that there is not enough funding or some combination of those.

And having been at a school that was comfortable I experienced the benefits of the community building that comes along with that sort of work.

So obviously there is a goal to raise a lot of money but there is also a level of community building that takes place from the process and I think we have to be very deliberate about how we have this conversation if we are going to try to find a win that is a win for equity and a win for community engagement where we honor the work of those families and a win for building communities around their schools.

This is such a high-value thing for building those communities and I hope that as a board and as a city we can keep having those conversations and trying to find a win in there somewhere.

Dr. Pinkham.

I want to definitely get on record to your appreciation that these parents are able to raise this kind of funds but we do see an inequity where there are certain neighborhoods where yes the parents are able to get together and raise those funds.

On other schools they can't get those funds and they are losing programs because they don't have the strength of their PTA.

I would like to see if maybe somehow encourage these other PTAs like at John Stanford to maybe work with those other parents.

How can we collaboratively help you out too so you aren't under always the chopping block because you don't have the support.

Because there are I think parents out of these other schools that yes I am willing to help out but I just can't help out financially if we can get them to team together and make the whole school district a lot better off.

Any more comments?

Questions?

Ms. Foley.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Reluctantly aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

This motion is passed unanimously.

Next one is PTA 3 award construction contract K5066, number B11535 to coast to coast turf incorporated for athletic field turf replacement at Franklin High School.

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute contract K5066 with Coast to Coast Turf Incorporated for the athletic field turf replacement at Franklin high school project in the amount of $604,422 plus Washington sales tax in the form of the draft contract attached to the board action report with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the contract.

Second the motion.

Can I hear from the chair for ops?

This motion was discussed at ops committee on the 25th of February the committee moved the item to the full board for consideration.

So I would, Richard Best Director of Capital Projects and Planning.

I know that Director or Dr. Herndon received an email from Director Geary.

I had the opportunity to look at the website reference that you cited.

I am not familiar with that product and you know I will note that the website did note that it was being introduced to the American market and the one concern I would have would be the type of pinning that they use in order to put that product down.

Now that being said I will also note that we do pin down sod turf as well and it's just More research would be needed in order to ascertain if that would be a viable product for utilization as a football field.

I know soccer, it was titled for soccer, it was titled for golf.

They indicated football, I'd have some concerns about the proposed pens and just would need more time to do research and I unfortunately didn't see that email until late today.

And I apologize to get everybody up to speed so this is having to do with the crumb rubber and I just can't shake my concern about this product and it's clearly I didn't realize there are people in my own community that have children who were goalies and have the lymphoma and so it just brought it home to me in a way There are studies going on to see if this is a safe product.

putting it out like everybody else and I don't feel you know that there's been any you know malice in doing that but with so with with this concern raised I just I have the other question I had was not only is this product that's both a synthetic but it'll it sort of it allows natural grass natural turf to come up with sort of something to stabilize it so that's what Mr. Best is talking about but also what is the harm of putting off the replacement of the turf until we get some conclusion on the studies that are currently ongoing so that we are not making an investment only to have to rip it out potentially once we find out.

if there is a problem.

I know we asked that before but I need to hear it again.

Yes our artificial turf fields are on a replacement schedule for every 10 years.

And these projects that we are recommending their 10 year period is up and so we have, we do know that they are safe at this moment in time from the GMAX testing that we do.

Most construction products do have a kind of an acceleration cycle at the very end of their life for deterioration.

So for me to stand before the board and to say that that product would be safe throughout the duration of next year I can't do that.

I could surmise that it would be safe based upon the fact that it does have an e-layer underneath and would meet resiliency testing but product you know in the school district that I worked with previously we were replacing our fields at 10 years.

Manufacturers recommend they be replaced at 10 years and we have a replacement schedule here for 10 years as well Director Geary.

I do know that there have been numerous studies that have been conducted looking at this issue of is this a health related issue and there are ties to alleged ties to, you know, lymphoma with the use of this product.

None of the health studies that I'm aware of have substantiated that.

And as I testified before you at the last meeting, the government has really directed the Consumer Product Safety Commission, EPA, and Center for Disease Control to issue a definitive study.

And that's anticipated in December of 2016.

I thought I might just add because I did have other questions related to this.

Two things, one I did check with our insurance entity what their position is on use of artificial turf and they have received the question from a number of districts given the publicity and things.

Their position is after having worked with the State Department of Health that they don't see any elevated health risk associated either cancer or non-cancer with this type of artificial turf.

at this point.

And we also conducted a litigation search to see has there been litigation anywhere in the country related to artificial turf and a tie to cancer or other health hazards.

And at this point there hasn't been any litigation that we could locate where someone successfully brought a suit, actually even brought a suit alleging that cancer was caused by this substance.

The only suit we did find was a case in Chicago where parents actually sought to try and stop a district from using artificial turf and in that case the court said there is no evidence, real evidence that it causes cancer so no I will not prohibit the district from using artificial turf.

So that's what we know right now.

Dr. Harris.

I think I stated at the last meeting that the CDC and the CPSC and now we're talking about DOH might be the only agencies that are more over mandated and underfunded than we are.

I reluctantly will vote no on this because as a litigator I'm on the cleanup crew.

and science doesn't operate on a straight line and if you've got a study coming out at the end of the year that is supposed to be definitive I can't vote for this.

Thank you.

Any more questions?

Dr. Peters.

Well I just want to add that I also have concerns about this and I have heard about different correlations.

So I would rather that we look for some alternative and I don't know what that would consist of and how long that would take and how long it would cost.

But I do think it is important for us to be considering these issues.

and for as a board for us to be speaking on behalf of the health of our children especially since as Director Geary says we do know of cases where there have been children who have played on these fields and have developed some illnesses.

So we might be a couple of steps behind the research on that and we are waiting to have a definitive proof.

But I do have concerns.

Director Pinkham.

I guess one of the concerns like if we do stick with the turf that is there currently at that age it is going to turn out that is a higher risk instead of replacing it with a fresher turf.

So there is always going to be that kind of risk that we are taking and if we do proceed with replacing this turf do we have some kind of Insurance I would help us, oh the test comes out yes it is definitely cancerous and we need to replace it.

Do we have the funds then to go back to tear that field back up and then put in the proper one.

So not replacing it I think could be a risk too if it is cancerous itself and not putting in a new one that may be less so.

Again there is still like too many I don't knows here.

Director Burke.

If we were to suspend this is there a fiscal impact, the money that is allocated to this, does it just carry forward or is there a negative aspect if it were to not be approved this year.

So I looked, okay not to do this this year, I looked in the notice to proceed date for item 6 and the notice to proceed date for the contractor in this construction contract was April 15 so we do have one more school board meeting before that notice to proceed date would need to be issued.

Item number 7 is also concerning synthetic turf.

The notice to proceed date on that item is sooner.

And the implications would be that we would probably be paying acceleration in order to achieve those construction milestones that we have identified.

Those construction milestones were identified with the involvement of the school's athletic directors to make sure we could meet the field's needs for football.

I think the new information should we get it would be in December that could impact this decision so I would see the most likely if not now essentially sometime after December.

So just one comment that I want to add in there as Director Harris has stated, talking about several agencies that are over mandated and underfunded.

I would be surprised if they actually complete that report by December.

I am just putting that in there so I think that would be optimistic.

Our own Entities within the city have tried to complete a survey about certain properties, Roosevelt Reservoir whether or not they are going to surplus that.

Originally that was supposed to be a December 14 conclusion.

We are in March of 16 and there is still not a definitive conclusion to that.

I'm cautious about waiting until a definitive report comes out because quite honestly I think personally I just don't think that will come in December.

I think it will be longer than that and then we've got, if we end up having to repair the fields because they accelerate and break down earlier we're going to have to spend this money to then make the repair right then and there because our athletes and users of the fields will be at risk.

Right, I guess I want to go specifically back to the point because we are looking at a trade-off between a bunch of uncertainties, the uncertainty of the lifetime of the current fields, the uncertainty of availability of an alternate that would be better, and the uncertainty of actual feedback that we should decide to pursue an alternate.

My question goes back to the funding that is allocated for this.

will it carry forward if we delay or is that something that has an actual time horizon?

No the funding that is allocated for this would carry forward it would be fenced you know so it would be used for this purpose.

Director Burke.

Director Blanford.

Did we inform our voters that this work was going forward?

We did.

In both the BTA-3 and BTA-4 we've had conversations about synthetic turf.

Now the question would become is did we inform the voters that we're reusing the rubber crumb infill?

That level of specificity I do not know that we got to.

So would those folks who utilize our fields know that we use rubber crumb infill, yes they do.

So that's one more issue to factor into this.

responsibility we have to deliver on what we said we were going to do particularly using funds that have been entrusted to us by the voters of Seattle.

That in my mind is not an insignificant issue given the fact that There must be thousands of fields all around the country that would be using this type of and we have no reports that say that there are carcinogenic elements in there at this point.

No confirmed reports and there have been, there are 40 reports that are posted on the EPA website at this moment in time and they are, some of them are international reports that have studied this question.

Thank you.

Dr. Pinkham.

Yeah and I believe he had mentioned that when it was brought up at operations that some other school districts that use this current turf do have signs up outside to let the.

Seattle Parks.

Seattle Parks.

District.

Is that something that you said that yeah we let the people know that that's what we plan on.

Will signs be up?

on these fields?

We haven't posted those signs at this time for Seattle Public Schools fields but it's something that we have talked about internally in our capital projects office.

That's a good idea.

We should be making folks aware that this is rubber crumb infill and make sure that they get it off their cleats and shoes that they utilize on these fields before going into the school or into their cars and tracking it home.

It's one of the identified problems with this infill mixture is that it's very It clings to your footwear.

And then as the fields get older are they more clingy?

I don't know about that.

What happens as the field gets older is that the turf size begins to degrade and shrink.

And so that's another reason why you're replacing the turf.

Because then it gets probably easier for it, if it gets smaller, for it to be carried someplace else without someone noticing it.

So again on some of the fields so I am a user of several different fields in different areas and the products vary obviously but there are some fields that I have played on, my children have played on.

It is not the crumb rubber but if you play on those it basically looks like you have been walking through freshly mowed grass.

The blades themselves just you look like you have green socks.

The blades themselves stick to that as it degrades quickly enough and then that of course if you are losing all those blades the field is in pretty bad shape.

Director Harris.

To Director Blanford's point about whether or not this was in the levees it is a very good point but would you agree that we oftentimes move projects around based on the direction that you get from the board in those levies?

Yes, you are the final decision makers.

I would agree.

Second question or comment is tobacco products were studied for years and weren't considered carcinogens.

If you recall the anti-inflammatory drugs Vioxx, vaginal mesh, there is a whole series of products that were vetted through a number of different agencies and or whose research turned out to be quote unquote junk science.

The fact that science doesn't operate in parallel seen too many multi-district litigation and class action lawsuits for me to be able to vote yes to.

Thank you.

Is there another turf that can be used besides this one?

Yes there are other alternatives available Director Patu.

There's an organic infill product that's available that's been used in one high school in the Pacific Northwest in South Kitsap.

I'm not familiar with the product that Director Geary sent me the website reference I did look at that this afternoon.

They have utilized sand previously as an infill that had significant issues but there are other products that have been utilized.

Again I will just note that there have been studies on this organic crumb rubber infill and none of them have put the link together.

So is there already fields that are already with this turf?

Our fields?

I mean do we have athletic fields that are actually using this turf presently that it's already laid out.

All of our athletic fields currently today have an organic crumb rubber infill to the best of my knowledge.

Okay.

Thank you.

Well I think it is called organic crumb rubber infill but it's yeah.

It's crumb rubber.

Crumb rubber yeah.

Crumb rubber infill sorry.

It's not organic.

It's rubber.

Any more questions?

Comments?

Okay Ms. Foley the vote.

Director Geary.

No.

Director Harris.

Nay.

Director Peters.

No.

Director Pinkham.

Reluctantly nay.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Nay.

This motion has not passed by a vote of 2 to 5.

PTA 3 award public works contract K5067 to Hellas Construction Incorporated for Ballard High School and Roosevelt High School athletic facility improvements.

Chair for ops recommendation.

Oh I'm sorry I'm going ahead of myself I'm sorry.

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute contract K5067 with Helles Construction Incorporated for the Ballard High School and Roosevelt High School athletic facility improvements project in the amount of $799,900 plus Washington State sales tax in the form of the draft contract dated.

blank and attached to the board action report with any minor additions, deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent to take any necessary actions to implement the contract.

Second the motion.

Can I hear from the chair for ops?

Sure.

Thank you.

This motion was discussed in the operations committee on the 25th of February and moved forward to the full board for consideration.

Any questions or comments on this?

Director Geary.

I would have to see if we could issue one of two things Director Geary.

We have two tracks associated with this project.

We would have to look at seeing if we could implement a change order with Hellas construction or we would have to probably re-bid this with just the tracks.

Not knowing the direction of the infill.

Director Blanford.

I know we had the conversation and many of the issues that were raised during the last discussion of the last agenda item were raised during the operations committee.

I assume you have done some work since then to address some of the concerns that were aired at the operations committee meeting.

But the recommendation of the staff in this case is still for us to proceed with approval of the replacement?

It was a replacement of the synthetic turf at, just one second here.

at Roosevelt and it was resurfacing the tracks at Ballard and Roosevelt where the scope of work for this project.

So the issue is not the same?

The issue is slightly different in that the previous project it was only replacement of the synthetic turf.

This is a replacement or a resurfacing of the track as well as the replacement of the synthetic turf with the crumb rubber infill.

So the part that we grappled with on the last agenda item is the same in addition to the resurfacing of the two tracks.

Correct.

And the recommendation from the staff is still the same, it didn't change as a result of the conversation in the operations committee.

Correct.

Thank you.

So we would have to look as to whether we can negotiate a change order and that would probably be a conversation with general counsel with Hellas construction to only implement the tracks.

We don't have the tracks to the best of my knowledge broken out as individual prices so it's a lump sum bid.

There will be some inefficiencies potentially that we create.

if we remove the synthetic turf because downtime on synthetic turf folks could be working on the track so it might be in the best interest of Seattle Public Schools to see how quickly we bid just resurfacing these tracks.

So.

Any more comments?

Director Harris.

So for general counsel.

Does it work if we can split this duly noted resolution into two?

Well you could split it into two but I think based on the way the work was bid we probably would need to go back out to bid with only the single project as something for bidders to bid on.

State law requires us to have, we define the work bidders bid on it and then we have to award the lowest bidder.

If you change the work too substantially then you are required to go back out to bid.

And I'm guessing based on what I'm hearing, I haven't seen the bidding documents myself, but based on the way this was advertised to bidders that we are going to have to go back out and then come back to you with a new proposed contract at the right contract amount probably, well who knows, with maybe a different winning bidder.

Thank you.

Dr. Burke.

I just want to go on record that I think the discussion that we are having is an important one for the board to find our risk management comfort level.

I think it helps us as a group.

My concern is that Obviously we are potentially delaying some projects based on a perceived level of risk that relies pretty heavily on people's personal risk mitigation or risk tolerance level.

And I think that that gives me some pause so I will be supporting this bar as well.

Dr. Geary.

I appreciate that and I can see all sorts of reasons why this should move forward.

And it's just one of those things that my gut, it's just my gut and I hold no judgment over anybody else's processing of this particular issue.

And it pains me greatly to interfere with important work that we need done.

But I also have to vote my mind.

Thanks and I can appreciate that.

And I realize that you know every project is actually this time and also money but at the same time when there is suspicion at any point especially when you are talking about children that is really kind of a big question mark and a risk because you know you don't know the unknown so I am going to vote no on this.

Ms. Foti the vote.

Director Peters.

No.

Director Pinkham.

Reluctant nay.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Nay.

Director Harris.

Nay.

Director Patu.

No.

This motion has not passed by a vote of 5 to 2. 2 to 5 I'm sorry.

BEX IV and PTA IV award contract P1438 for construction management services for BEX IV and PTA IV project at Lincoln High School and Wing Luke Elementary School to AHERI International Incorporated.

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute construction contract P1438 with Hearing International Incorporated in the amount of $3,983,290 plus Washington State sales tax WSST for construction management services for the BEX IV and ETA IV project at Lincoln High School and Wing Luke Elementary School in the form of the draft agreement attached to the board action report with any minor additions, deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the agreement.

I move the motion.

Second the motion.

Can we hear from the chair of ops?

The motion was discussed at the 25th of December, of February operations committee meeting and was moved forward to the full board for consideration.

Thank you.

Any questions or comments on this?

Ms. Foley you can vote.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

This motion is passed unanimously.

The next one is PTA 3 and BEX 4 award construction contract K5062 to Holmberg company for McGilva Elementary mechanical heating ventilation and air conditioning HVAC upgrades.

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute construction contract K5062 with Holmberg company for the McGilvra Elementary mechanical HVAC upgrades in the amount of $1,427,349 including alternates number 1A and number 2A plus Washington State sales tax.

in the form of the draft agreement attached to the board action report with any minor additions, deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary action to implement the contract.

Chair of ops.

I second the motion.

Chair of ops.

Again February 25 ops committee move forward to the board for consideration.

Director Burke.

I just had one quick question about the alternates.

I won't mention alternate 2A just based on name but alternate 1A the controls the Siemens building technologies controls what is that alternate to and how does the Siemens upgrade improve or what is the basis for that versus the base.

So the Siemens controls are the building's thermostat.

We can remotely monitor the controls here at the John Stanford Center.

It's a computer network that literally controls the thermostats for those classrooms and lets us do energy management.

The second alternate that you didn't mention It is the company name and that actually just provides some ventilation within the classrooms.

We provided a fan.

We looked at two fans.

The recommendation was to go with 2A.

It is a slightly better quality fan.

Does the base for 1A provide the networked thermal control?

1A does provide.

1A does but does the base, the reason we are choosing 1A over a base.

Is it the addition of that network?

The base bid does not, no we actually wanted to see the pricing on these two manufacturers.

So that we actually can make the selection.

Director Burke could you explain what you just did?

This is clear as mud to me.

Okay the base bid includes a

includes no controls on this project.

A control system that is building based and the alternate includes a network based building control that can be managed from the central office.

That would not quite be technically accurate.

The base bid includes no building controls.

None.

The price that you see in alternate 1A and 1B is for the building controls and it allows those building controls also to be on our network so that we can see how that building is operating here at the Stanford center.

But there's no controls in the base bid.

That's even clearer.

Thank you.

Any more comments?

Questions?

Ms. Foley.

Vote.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Director Patu.

Aye.

This motion is passed unanimously.

Next one is BTA III and BEX IV award construction contracts P5071 to Western Ventures construction for mini middle school renovation.

Did I skip something?

I thought it was number 10. Oh I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

BEX IV program contingency fund transfer to the mini middle school renovation project budget.

I move that the school board increase the project budget for the Meany middle school renovation project from $27,618,621 to $29,618,621 and approve the transfer of $2 million from the BEX IV program contingency account to the Meany middle school renovation project budget.

I second the motion.

Chair.

Again, Ops Committee February 25 moved to the full board with recommendation for approval.

Any questions, comments?

Okay Ms. Foley the vote.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

This motion is passed unanimously.

Okay number 11, PTA 3 and BEX IV award construction contract P5071 to Western Ventures construction for Meany Middle School renovation.

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute construction contract P5071 with Western Ventures construction for the Meany Middle School renovation in the amount of $17,672,001 including alternates number 1, number 2A, number 4, number 5, number 7, and number eight plus Washington sales state sales tax in the form of the draft agreement attached to the board action report with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary action to implement the contract.

Further if the board approves the BEX IV $2 million program contingency fund transfer to the Meany middle school renovation project budget the total project budget for this work is $29,618,621.

I second the motion.

Ops Committee February 25 move forward for consideration.

Thank you.

Any questions comments?

Ms. Foley the vote.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

We are finished with our action items now we are going to introduction items.

Number one amending superintendent evaluation timeline.

Hi Erin Bennett.

Good evening I guess I should say at this point.

I am here to speak to the first introduction item regarding amending the superintendent evaluation timeline for 2016-17.

Several options were presented to the Executive Committee and so the motion before you would move the Superintendent's annual evaluation from November to June but not until June of 2017. So this year in 2016 the annual evaluation would still occur in November of 2016. this motion came out of a conversation around why the original switch took place.

So several years ago we partnered with the Washington State School Directors Association and they helped us redesign and redevelop our evaluation system.

And one of the things that they helped us do was actually shift our evaluation from June to November in order to allow for data to be available.

So for example in November The state of the district occurs, the district scorecard is available as is the operations data dashboard.

However, since that time several challenges have come up.

during the November timeline including during election year it also raises some challenges as well.

And so this conversation arose out of that and so what you have before you is a shift but a transition shift.

So this year it would stay November 2016 and then the next evaluation would occur in June of 2017.

Any questions or comments?

Thank you.

And I'm so sorry I had one other point.

I did want to note that the attachment was added as a reference document.

It was incorrectly labeled and so the correct one was attached so you now have it.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Amending policy number 1440. Hello again.

So this motion is as Director Patu stated amending policy 1440 regarding minutes.

I would call out two main changes to the policy.

There are also several cleanup sections but the two main changes you will see are clarifying the approval around both regular board meetings like legislative meeting minutes as well as special meeting minutes and separating out the timeline for each of those.

As you know our regular board meetings occur typically the first and third Wednesdays of every month and so the minute takers have time to get those minutes together and post them prior to the next regular board meeting.

However we also have special meetings which can occur on a Wednesday evening right before the board meeting posts on Friday.

And that is a very quick turnaround for our minute takers.

And so this motion would allow a little bit more flexibility for them to draft those minutes.

However, one of the questions that came up at the executive committee was Okay if we are going to provide a little bit of flexibility is there some language in there about the timeliness and sort of is there a cutoff as you were, a deadline.

And so you will see in the draft proposed policy that language was added regarding special meeting minutes that they shall be scheduled in a timely manner and whenever possible for the next regular board meeting after the special meeting has occurred.

So we are not trying to create a long a long time in between the meeting and the approval but we are trying to in those exceptions where it's a Wednesday night to a Friday posting provide a little bit of flexibility.

The second change that I wanted to call out and that we had a lot of discussion around at the Executive Committee was under section D on the first page and that is clarifying and Director Peters spoke to it a little bit during her board comments Clarifying that the summary of items discussed during the meeting by both directors and staff should be included in the minutes and so we added that language as well.

Those are the two big changes and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions, comments?

Thank you.

Oh, Director Burke.

I have just one.

There is language here about unofficial minutes of regular board meetings shall be sent to board members in advance of the next regular meeting of the board and shall also be available to other interested citizens.

Available to other interested citizens, is there a process established or timeline or how does that work?

So the unofficial minutes are posted on Friday with the agenda itself and so they are available online to the public as well as to the board directors prior to their approval at the Wednesday board meeting.

Okay so that is the availability channel is through the posting of board agendas it's not a separate.

I'd like to see the minutes the unofficial minutes.

So that is what I read this as meeting yes.

In the old days you had to come down here and go upstairs and look at the hard copy book.

This is a huge.

However after Friday posting if anybody came to the board office and asked for you know the unofficial minutes we would provide them in a paper copy if electronic was not available.

But after the Friday posting when the agenda was posted.

Thank you.

Number 3. Motion to approve principles for car key memorial fund.

Participation as members of the committee on selection committee.

Good evening Directors, John Cerqui, Deputy General Counsel.

This BAR before you requests your authorization to nominate principals.

This is a rather longstanding trust that a private individual set up to benefit Seattle school district students who graduate and attend public school.

A new trustee came on board and found that the trust union bank wasn't doing things the way it should have been doing it so one of the things is to ask the board to nominate four principals.

So this bar before you is to set up a schedule to have principals rotate on the selection committee and that's an attachment.

Well it's not attachment one it's just the only attachment to the bar.

So that lists kind of a rotating schedule for our principals to participate on the selection committee.

We did pass this by pass and Spencer Welsh to get his kind of acknowledgement that this would be an appropriate way to have his principal group participate and he's reviewed it and has approved it.

So I guess I'm not very clear.

This actually is a memorial fund and the board directors would pick the members, the principal that actually would be a part of this.

That's correct and I probably didn't go into extensive detail I think I did in the committee so I apologize that I haven't explained in more detail.

Yes so there is a trust last year that gave about $72,000 to our graduating students.

So the trust is by Carkeek probably after the namesake of Carkeek Park.

So she died in the 1950s, set up a rather large trust that has over about $2.8 million in there.

Some of the money goes to other charitable purposes but three quarters of it goes only interest for scholarships for our graduating students.

So they have eight people participate on who is going to get awarded those scholarships and under the will they want to have four principals on that committee.

And the will says they want the board to appoint four members.

They haven't been doing that.

I've never seen that done.

I think principals have just been participating.

Last year there were Seattle school district principals participating but it's rather ad hoc.

It's kind of who the trustee can contact.

So we want to have a more equitable and fair process that goes all throughout our region, our five regions to have some points of views and different perspectives on who should be awarded the scholarship.

So it's appointing four principals to participate in the selection committee.

So do we have four principals on there right now?

Last year we did have three assistant principals and one principal participate.

This year the group will be Ballard, Cleveland, Franklin and Middle College.

I've already heard back from Franklin and Ballard that they are willing and interested to serve.

I just haven't heard back from Cleveland and Middle College.

Okay, so we don't have to pick any principal this year then since you are already in place.

You need to approve this so once it is approved then they will have authorization to participate with the trustee on the selection.

Okay, thank you.

Just a point of clarification because we discussed this.

We don't actually pick the principals we just, the names of the schools have been organized in rotating fashion so it is just whoever the principal is of those four schools for each.

Is it a yearly assignment?

They will do it for two-year terms.

Thank you for that clarification.

Any more comments, questions?

Director Pinkham.

You said you haven't heard back from was it Cleveland Middle College and if they don't respond what's the plan?

I'll follow up.

They could just be assuming yeah we'll serve and they didn't write back saying yeah I'm excited about it.

And they could be waiting for you to take final action before because they did say the board needs to approve before they respond back.

Okay thank you.

Our last one PTA 3 award construction contract K5065 to Elliott Incorporated for green energy geothermal wells at Lashaw Elementary School.

Yes so this is for Leschi Elementary School it's the geothermal well system that I've been up and presented to the board before.

Iliad Construction has done this work for us before so this is really a good news story in that we have a very competent contractor who has performed this work for Seattle Public Schools in the past.

has successfully implemented these types of projects over the summer and we're really pleased to recommend that this work be awarded to ILLiad for their performance.

The green geothermal wells as I've explained to the board previously provide both heat and cooling for our heating systems when we combine them with the heat pump.

We extract the heat to generate water that goes through the heat pump system to get heat for the building.

In the summertime we're able to actually use the wells as a heat sink as we're cooling our buildings.

We can take the hot water that's generated in the hydronic loop and put it back in into the ground and have it cool that loop for us.

And so it's a very effective methodology and will reduce our overall utility costs.

I'm here for the chair of ops, thank you.

This was heard by the Ops Committee on the 25th of February moved forward to the board for full, to the full board for consideration.

I don't know why I get that wrong every time.

Thank you.

Any questions, comments?

Okay thank you very much Richard.

And we are now adjourned.

It is 9.03.