Director Harris do you have a motion you would like to share?
I have a motion to amend the agenda if I might Madam Chair.
And that is to move the alternative learning experience to the next position on the agenda please.
There are little children in the house that need to go to bed and overworked principals that need to get up and do it again with feeling in the morning.
Do I hear a second?
Second.
Okay.
All in favor?
Aye.
All right so moved.
So that moves item number six to the front of the line.
Oh you know what this is an intro item.
Okay can we do an intro item ahead of action?
This is a question for General Counsel.
Noel Treat General Counsel yes you can amend your agenda you have a lot of discretion and flexibility around how you want to do that so you can certainly move the item and have it now and then come back to action items.
Then shall we proceed?
All right let's move ahead with item number six intro only.
Thank you.
Oh, OK, let me see.
I will read that.
So this is the annual approval of written plans of programs or schools using the alternative learning experience model and I would like to speak to the C&I chair.
Unfortunately I was unable to attend C&I that day but it was presented in C&I October 10 and was recommended to be moved forward for consideration.
I would ask my colleagues to speak to WYOA's consideration as compared to for approval.
I honestly don't recall kind sir.
Perhaps staff can address the.
I am Dan Gallagher, Director of Career and College Readiness.
I also was unable to attend but I do know the reason why it was moved for consideration.
So this is for the annual approval of the alternative learning experiences.
This is per state regulation.
It includes two components and approval of the program and then also sharing of the plan and the annual report.
The annual report for the two ALEs we had last year, three of the components of that report require student counts, headcount, student FTE and staff to student ratio.
Because we wanted to include the October count for that, the report that was presented to C&I committee meeting had those parts blank.
So that's why you didn't move to approve but for consideration.
So if you refer to the attachments the two reports from interagency as well as cascade parent partnership now in items 1, 2, and 3 include those figures.
I'd also like to acknowledge the principals of the four programs here.
Melinda Leonard from interagency, Mark Perry from Nova high school, Owen Gonder from Cascade parent partnership and Jennifer Knisley from Middle College.
And I appreciate your compassion on moving them up in the agenda.
Are there any questions or comments?
My comment is I'm just really thrilled to see this happening again.
It happened in the past.
It gives us flexibility.
Kids are not widgets.
So our budgets and our programs ought not be widgets as well.
And I'm I'm very pleased that this will give us that kind of flexibility with good leadership.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you very much.
We shall now return to the action portion of our agenda.
And the first item.
2016-17 board governance priorities and superintendent goals.
This came to the executive committee on September 8 and it was advanced for consideration.
I believe that the reason why it was for consideration was we were about to have a board retreat where we were going to discuss these issues in some further detail and we wanted to wait until we got that information.
All right.
Do I have a motion?
Second.
All right.
Does anybody have any questions or comments?
Director Pinkham.
So sorry so we are on the first action item correct?
One of the commenters, public comments brought up as far as do we have access to any data on other schools that maybe just we can look at for a baseline or something to compare ourselves against.
Do we know if we have access to something like that?
Good evening, Erin Bennett, Government Relations and Strategic Initiatives.
We have developed our superintendent evaluation tools over the last few years.
It started in consultation with WASDA, the Washington State School Directors Association.
We were one of their pilots.
So what I can do is reach out to WASDA and also get some feedback on not only our pilot which for the record has kind of been modified as we went along but also how some of the other pilots that they did are doing.
And I also can just ask if they have any other suggestions in terms of benchmarks and things like that.
Any other comments or questions?
All right I have Director Burke.
I just want to share a comment since we are kind of in the thick of working on goals, you know future facing goals as well and as a first-year board director I get to kind of look at it with fresh eyes, fresh perspective and maybe fresh, criticism or you know critical mindset and one of the things that I've kind of struggled with throughout when you look at education and education philosophy it seems like there's always a next better thing.
You know the concept of education reform is like the new normal.
And so one of the things that I'd like for us to think about as an organization is if there is a way that we can try to morph our goal structure into something which represents continuing doing what we are doing that is good and then a set of goals that represent change management.
So if we are doing a goal it should be a goal for something we want to change.
And maybe that's a student achievement level, maybe that's an internal structure but the idea that the majority of the work that we do here is really staying the course and trying to deliver great education to our students and so if we can be really deliberate about only changing things that need to be changed.
And you know having continuity of services, we talk about continuity, consistency, not having disruption.
Every time we change something in the district it's a potential for disruption.
So the idea of thinking about organizational change as you know within the goal structure.
I'm kind of seeing some furrowed eyebrows but that's just a thought for us to discuss in the future.
Director Harris.
I'm going to push back on you Director Burke.
Staying the course with all due respect the course is not good enough and that we need to be on a continuum perhaps.
Would you agree with that?
A continuum of improvement.
I would not agree with that as a global statement.
I would agree with that as a selective statement where if we say we want to improve as an organization it means you know we look around we have pockets of excellence we don't want to disrupt that excellence we don't want to disrupt things that are working well by creating a new goal that undermines that work.
We want to be able to create a goal that targets areas for improvement and initiatives that target areas for improvement.
It is almost more of a granularity discussion.
Do we need to improve as an organization or do we need to improve specific aspects of our organization?
I will vote for both.
Thank you.
I also have a comment.
For smart goal number four that is the one that concerns our budget.
And as a member of the Audit and Finance Committee I am very interested in this but also I think we are all very concerned about where we are heading next year financially.
And so this is a goal that I think is one of the more crucial ones in a way.
And I was looking at the wording of the goal and one sentence in the top of this rubric says the district will conduct a district comparison by major activities and programs including looking for efficiencies.
And that sentence struck me as a little vague and I'm sorry I didn't catch this sooner but I don't know that that conveys what we were trying to get at with this goal.
The conversation around the intent was let's take a look, given that we have limited resources let's take a look at what we are doing with what we've got and evaluate the different programs, initiatives, services and see which ones are working, how much they are costing and whether we need to reconsider some of these and maybe reallocate some funds.
And I don't know that that sentence expresses that sentiment.
So I'm going to make a suggestion, a few edits to that sentence with the idea that that would help guide us in this goal.
And so here they are and if people are amenable to this idea I would like to propose this as an amendment to that or a change to this sentence and that would be the district will conduct An analysis and comparison of costs and benefits of major activities and programs including looking for efficiencies within.
So what I did there was I added some vibrant verbs and nouns that are a little bit more specific and added the word analysis which I think needs to be in there.
If you are offering that as an amendment I will second same.
All right.
Sure.
Thank you.
I am doing this from memory and I may need some help from those of you with better memories than I.
When we had this discussion we agreed that that is something that we definitely want to do.
So I think I can say with surety that that is exactly what we need to do.
We also noted and this is where my memory may be a bit flawed that to do that work would take substantial resources and time.
And so we didn't put it into the work for the first year of that goal because we didn't allocate resources to do so.
And I'm looking to see if anyone else is helping me with memory.
Perhaps our CFO could help with that.
Thank you.
JoLynn Berge assistant superintendent for business and finance.
I concur with your memory.
So what that would mean for us to do so and again I think it's an absolutely essential and worthy thing to do so let's be clear about that.
It would take resources that we have not currently set aside I'm struggling with what we thought it might take to do that and it would of course depend on the scope of how many different programs that we would look at.
To do the work well is time consuming and usually done by outside people without bias so they can come in and help us discover whatever it is that we need to do.
I have done those types of reviews in prior positions for other organizations and it's about a six-month process and depending upon the detail you can spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars in time and people looking at something if you go into a very deep detail on a specific districtwide set of issues or you might spend $25,000 on a more high-level view of a specific program.
This being a fairly crucial year in terms of our budget it seems to me that it would be worthwhile to find the resources to at least head in this direction.
And again the sentence as written right now doesn't really send us anywhere.
So I would like some more precise language in there and I get the impression that some of my colleagues share that sentiment.
I know, well I will just speak for myself.
So you know we have allocated funds for each of our SMART goals and does anyone recall how much we allocated for the budget SMART goal?
Zero.
We allocated zero funds to the budget.
We put in $50,000 to support the news dues based on our participation in that group so that's basically a per capita cost for us to support that effort.
And then we also included I think $2,500 originally for community engagement around the way we use budget and we trimmed that back when we were looking at ways to shave on savings.
Right now goal four does not have any budget allocated to it.
Well that is a bit of a dilemma.
Well then I would like to propose that if we do value this as a goal and we want to make some headway and in view of the fact that we were recently asked to start thinking about some very difficult choices that we need to make for our budget that this would be a wise step for us.
So, I'm wondering whether we could take a look at the board budget.
We have a certain amount of funds in our budget.
Perhaps we could decide to allocate it for some sort of analysis that would come out of our budget.
Well, Director Burke has been waiting to speak and then Director Harris.
I just have a clarification question because I think I'm on board with the intent that you're speaking to but I want to understand we have a motion and a second so this is a viable legislative activity we're talking about here.
You're referring to the last sentence in smart goal 4?
Correct.
The district will conduct a district comparison by major activities and programs including looking for efficiencies.
I was wondering if there could be a little bit of a dialogue around how that It crosses over with goal 3 where that is it includes the district will design and implement a pilot program review process to systematically evaluate the implementation and impact of current program offerings.
So that speaks to a very you know a narrower educational set.
Whereas goal 4 is a little bit of a broader picture.
But goal 3 has more specificity in it.
Partly because it's operating on a finer level of granularity so I'm just I'm wondering what how much of goal 3 do we have to have complete to be able to do goal 4 or are they separate activities that can be done in parallel?
Well I will just respond by saying that I think the two are definitely connected and that goal four would be sort of the umbrella under which we would have an analysis of the program.
So yes the two definitely complement each other but I believe with the budget we also need to take a look at things like initiatives and allocations and so those might not be program related they might be something else.
Director Geary.
And it was my understanding that goal three was really focused on our schools and what's being delivered in our schools whereas I read this and this one would also encompass administrative activities programs and so I think that was driving some of the efficiencies conversation.
Director Pinkham.
I'm just wondering if some of your language that you're asking to change in the SMART goal, that last one, if that's more in the distinguished area because we do have reviews and analysis adjustments kind of how it goes.
Do we put that in the SMART goal itself or is it a measure of how well they're doing?
Yeah it could be both but realizing that this is late in the game I thought perhaps the best way to handle this more globally was to put it in the general description of the goal at the top.
And like I said add more specificity to what we are asking.
So if I can make a suggestion.
Sure thank you.
So if we amend the language per your suggestion maybe we can work together either individually myself with Director Peters to kind of flush a plan for this out what that would look like or we could work through the A&F committee that meets next week and have an agenda item that kind of starts to give some substance to how we would detail out this idea.
Director Harris.
I like the idea.
I do not like the idea of poaching out of the board budget because I think it is a joke to start with.
There has got to be more change in the sofa cushions than robbing the board budget that really doesn't give us very darn much at all.
And if you look at folks who are serving at their peril that we are told we can't even afford a cell phone for them to get instantaneous email to keep up with the thousands of emails we get.
I object to that concept mightily.
We are not funded worth a darn as a board of directors.
fight on your hands.
Thanks.
Well if we believe something is a priority, we as a board firmly believe that and if there are not funds to pursue that I was just putting forth a possibility.
As far as the board budget it varies on what year it is, if it is an election year then there is more in the budget and we talked about reconsidering how we allocate the board budget whether we want to spend it on travel for example or other issues and I think there has been an interest in allocating the board budget differently.
So I mean that is a discussion that we can continue.
I would like to return then to the language.
Yeah, I will restate it.
The district will continue analysis and comparison of costs and benefits of major activities and programs including looking for efficiencies within.
Would it help if we change the word conduct to begin?
Yes.
Director Geary.
I like the goal in that even if unfunded as we have work sessions and staff is reporting to us on what they are doing perhaps some cost-benefit analysis can be woven into that which I think is where this comes up.
We get the presentations They talk about their SWOT but we are not really sure what that means in terms of the finances of it so perhaps it can be woven in without being too expensive let's say.
It just seems like the next part of that analysis.
What is the value of that analysis that is being presented to us?
So if we have the word begin in there with the other changes would that address what you were saying Joe?
Sure.
Thank you for this and again I think speaking for the staff we like the idea it's just a matter of whether or not we can fulfill the commitment once approved by the board.
As we look at the rubrics under the goal.
A lot of the definition of begin and also of depth gets down to, as pointed out already, basic, proficient, distinguished.
So part of the expectation would have to do with how do we work together to get as far over to the distinguished category as possible.
I think that's, to JoLynn's point, that is a subject that we could continue to work on during the year.
And as we've noted with several of the other rubrics they sometimes need modification even after they've been developed.
So I would suggest that this is an opportunity for us to be a little bit proactive and also flexible to achieve a very very worthy and important goal.
Okay.
I was about to say I should withdraw the first one and put forth the second one with the changed word.
Why don't we do this, you didn't actually formally make the motion as we normally do so maybe you could go ahead and just make the motion anew with the language as you would like it.
Because the other alternative is you would have to, if we want to consider this motion made and seconded properly, then what you actually have to do, an individual then can't pull it off themselves.
You need the full board to vote.
So you have two options then.
You could make an amendment to amend the amendment or you could make a motion to withdraw the amendment, have everybody vote and then start over.
It might be easier to just make a motion to withdraw the motion.
Vote on that and then make the new motion.
I move to withdraw my amendment.
All in favor?
Aye.
Anyone opposed?
Okay now I would like to put forth another amendment very similar to the last with just one word change and so it would now read the district will begin an analysis and comparison of costs and benefits of major activities and programs including looking for efficiencies within.
Do I have a second?
Second.
Is there any further discussion?
All right.
Does Ms. Ritchie take the roll call now?
Yeah.
Okay.
So this is the amendment to the motion okay.
Director Geary.
Aye.
Director Harris.
Aye.
Director Pinkham.
Aye.
Director Burke.
Aye.
Director Peters.
Aye.
And thank you.
This motion to amend the action item number one has passed unanimously.
So now we are left with the amended BAR item and if there are no further questions or comments we can go forth and actually vote on the whole package.
Seeing none let's proceed with the vote.
Director Harris.
Aye.
Director Burke.
Aye.
Director Geary.
Aye.
Director Pinkham.
Aye.
Director Peters.
Aye.
This motion is passed unanimously.
Director Harris.
I would request leave to be excused.
I have a filing deadline so on behalf of my client I need to leave.
You are excused.
Thank you ma'am.
All right I would just like to point out that we are still a quorum at four and we may proceed.
So I believe we have no further action items because our second action item was going to be the growth boundaries discussion and that has been effectively postponed to the next board meeting.
So we now move to the introduction portion of our meeting.
And the first item is the 2016-17 legislative agenda.
This went to the executive committee on October 6 and was advanced for approval.
Approval of this item would adopt the 2016-17 legislative agenda.
Hello again.
So this motion is based on policy number 1225 legislative and program advocacy.
And the board for the policy the board is responsible for developing annual federal and state legislative agendas for the district that are consistent with the furtherance of the district's current strategic plan.
The draft developed that is attached to the board action report began by looking at last year's because we had some of the similar issues to look at and you will see on the draft that there are three proposed priorities for this session with funding being the obvious primary focus.
Those three include fully funding McCleary by providing ample and sustainable funding for K-12, fund capital projects and remove barriers to address capacity needs and eliminate the opportunity gaps and then there are sub bullets under each of those priorities.
I would note that in the board action report There is a phrase that although the legislative agenda is typically focused on a limited number of priorities the formal agenda does not limit the district's way in on other topics as they arise during legislative session.
And with that I am happy to answer any questions.
I also want to note that on the agenda is also the resolution that we passed earlier in the year regarding the smarter balance assessment.
And do we know what kind of form our efforts will take in Olympia in this regard?
I don't know yet.
At this point we are in the early stages as was noted in earlier testimony we had a meeting with some of our Seattle delegation yesterday around some of our capital issues.
At this point we are putting together our legislative agenda and You will see on the board action report that upon approval of this we will reach out to our Seattle delegation and other key partners including the governor's office, the mayor's office and the Seattle Council Parent Teacher Student Association as well as being used during the legislative session.
And the point that you were referencing is the second bullet under the eliminate the opportunity gaps and the phrasing underneath that around addressing fair and equitable assessment is the language from the resolution itself.
Thank you.
Director Burke.
We heard testimony today from Jerry Paulette and one of the things that he mentioned was the inclusion of the MSOC on our legislative agenda as a possible legislative ask and I'm wondering if when I look at it I don't see it explicitly in there is that something that we should consider adding or is that something which should be addressed through other avenues?
It's JoLynn Berge assistant superintendent for business and finance.
The biggest place that we remain underfunded is compensation.
My strong recommendation I believe as well as the deputies would be to stay the course with the compensation conversation.
Compensation is a huge gap for us as well as across the state.
Likely $3 billion.
clarification point about that is this because, you'll have to school me up again, is the MSOC out of operations as compared to capital budgets?
Is that why that might potentially compete with salaries?
Correct.
Right.
Material supplies and other operating costs are a part of the general fund operating budget as part of the allocation that comes in to us per FTE in a similar manner as compensation dollars would come to us.
So they would be in direct compensation or I'm sorry competition with each other.
The MSLOC value has been significantly raised by the legislature.
The compensation dollars have not moved at all.
Thanks so much that's really, that's great clarification for me.
Are there any other questions or comments about this item?
Director Geary.
Are there, do either you or Erin recall any other comments that Representative Palette made that are not fairly encompassed within this legislative agenda?
He spoke to a number of things, so I don't think I can say that everything that he spoke to is going to be on this one page.
He also spoke to some of the capital issues specifically that I don't think you see as much here though there is a capital section.
Broadly as was also mentioned in testimony with regard to the Seattle Council PTSA are sort of overarching themes around eliminating the opportunity gap, fully funding McCleary, things like that.
I definitely see alignment there.
All right seeing no further questions I think we are ready to move on to the next item.
Which is approval of collective bargaining agreement with Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters.
That came to the Audit and Finance Committee on October 13 where we advanced it for consideration.
Good evening.
Bruce Skowro, Director of Facilities.
So we are here to request school board approval of a new contract with the Pacific Northwest Council of Carpenters.
This is a three-year contract with new language clarifying seniority, work shifts, and overtime as well as a percentage increase in salary.
Approval of this contract will extend our long-term relationship with the Carpenters Union.
So good group.
Happy to answer any questions you might have.
I'm trying to recall why it was advanced for just consideration.
Do you recall what the discussion was around that?
We had an issue where there was a preliminary payment made to the carpenters prior to the board approval.
So that payment to the carpenters has since been taken back and will be contingent upon your approval.
I believe that was why.
Are there any other questions or comments?
Director Burke.
Just as a general information item for me, could you share approximately how many staff are affected by this?
18.
18. We have 18 carpenters yes.
And can you paraphrase what sort of role they have in the district?
What sort of work do they do for us?
Boy they are kind of our generalists within the district.
They build furniture, they repair walls.
basically general carpentry throughout the whole district.
Thank you.
Are there any other questions or comments?
All right thank you.
And I think this was approval and action.
No we are just doing introduction today.
Thank you.
All right the next item is amending board policy 2030 service animals and schools.
I will take this to C&I chair.
This came to the October C&I meeting October 10 and was moved forward for consideration by the full board.
So me again.
I am here to help present the motion to amend policy number 2030 service animals in schools.
This motion is being brought to ensure our policy is compliant with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA, the Department of Justice guidance, and the U.S.
Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights guidance or OCR.
In August of 2015, OCR had concerns about another district's use of the same WASDA model policy that we currently have.
That district worked with feedback from OCR to revise their policy.
The proposed revision that is attached to the board action report is in alignment and consistent with those changes that the other district made.
The practical implication of the change and I'll just highlight that section that is written on the board action report under policy implication.
The practical implication is that the change would omit two sentences that state that a student or employee must submit a written request to the building principal and that the principal in consultation with the section 504 coordinator should make a written determination whether or not to permit the service animal in schools.
Those sentences would be replaced with one that states generally the district will modify its policies, practices or procedures to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability.
Third page of the board action report there is a list of some outreach that was conducted with regards to reviewing this policy at the C&I policy committee on October 10, 2016. Additional outreach was requested.
You will note that in number 5 and number 6 on page 3 of the board action report that was conducted.
And also note that as of October 25 the district did not receive any feedback or suggestions.
And I'm happy to answer any questions.
What form did the outreach take that we did not get any response?
Do we know that people knew we were looking for feedback?
So the additional outreach that was requested or the outreach in general?
The additional outreach.
So let's see.
On Friday October 14 the special education PTSA as well as a dozen other disability and advocacy service organizations were notified via email around the information as well as it was shared on Tuesday October 18 with the special education advisory and advocacy council or SEAC and it was also put on the main page of the district newsletter and shared in School Beat.
I think those are the average.
All right and there was no feedback that was elicited for those efforts?
No.
All right.
Okay.
Director Burke.
Quick thank you to you and to staff bringing forward this policy work with an attached updated superintendent procedure as well.
Well I really can't take the credit.
Kelly Schmidt our student civil rights compliance officer did all of the work on this and so thank you.
Thanks go to her.
Sure my appreciation for that because I think that is much easier for us to work with as a board and to share with the community when we have a fully developed policy and procedure.
Director Geary.
And I appreciate the additional outreach.
Thank you.
So our next item is coming from the ops committee and that is amending board policy 4215 tobacco free environment.
Let's see our ops chair isn't here so Director Pinkham would you like to state the date it came to your committee?
Yes this item came to the ops committee October 20 and was heard by the committee and moved on to the board for consideration, for approval.
Okay thank you.
Good evening my name is Lisa Davidson I am the manager of prevention and intervention and I am here to propose that the board amend policy number 4215 tobacco free environment due to some recent legislative changes as well as WASDA recommendations.
RCW vapor products was recently created that prohibits the use of vapor products by persons under the age of 18 as well as the use of vapor products in schools within 500 feet of schools and on school transportation.
Based on WASA's recommendations we would also like to call out that smoking in district owned vehicles is prohibited in addition to district sponsored vehicles.
And to provide additional clarity around vapor devices and vapor products.
Are there any questions or comments?
Thank you very much.
We will move on to item number five and that is repeal of policy D121.00 student activities general standards and regulations.
And I will look to our C&I chair.
Okay.
This was discussed at C&I for a couple of months and brought forward October 10 was reviewed and moved forward to the full board with a recommendation for approval.
Hi Directors.
Mike Strosky, Chief of Schools.
So this has been brought as Director Burke mentioned a number of times before you and the action that we are requesting is that in 1985 this is an outdated policy that is more adequately addressed in other board policies.
therefore making this current policy outdated and redundant and we believe it is also ineffective and obsolete compared to the six referenced policies that are in the document that you have before you.
I am happy to answer any questions.
Oh Director Geary.
I'll just thank you for this work.
I know it's not very glamorous to move forward in the elimination of things versus the creation of things but it's nice to have our policies cleaned up.
Thank you.
Director Burke.
Ditto.
I understand this was hard because when we look at it there's a bunch of things in it we're like yeah yeah we believe that yeah we believe that.
There's a bunch of really good common sense things in it that we don't want to see them go away.
but recognizing that many of them are not actionable not enforceable and already exist in our other policies makes us enthusiastic about letting them go away.
Thank you.
So our next item is no longer item number six since we addressed that earlier so we jump over to item number seven and that is acceptance of the Washington schools risk management pool also known as WSRMP school security grant.
That came to audit and finance committee on October 13 where it was advanced to the full board for approval.
Thank you Pegi McEvoy, Assistant Superintendent for Ops and I am bringing forward an opportunity to accept a grant from the Washington State risk management pool for $332,657.
The purpose of this grant is to enhance safety and security in our schools.
We have ways to provide access control through intercom systems and buzzers in all of our new schools however our old schools are not yet equipped with that.
So the purpose of this grant is to expand the ability of some of our older schools to have that so we are planning to put in these intercom systems into two additional high schools, two middle schools, three K-8's and 16 elementary schools with this fund.
Are there any questions or comments?
All right thank you very much.
Thank you.
That brings us to our next item.
Item number eight resolution 2016-17-6 certifying excess levies and calculation of general fund levy rollback.
This also came to the Audit and Finance Committee on October 13 where it was advanced to the full board for approval.
JoLynn Berge assistant superintendent for business and finance.
Each year this is something that comes before the board every year.
Before the next calendar year tax levies are finalized by King County the school board is required to certify the collection amounts.
So the capital project amount does not change from the original amount approved by the voters.
But oftentimes our general fund levy for maintenance and operations has what is called a rollback and this is constrained by certain calculations that are required by law.
OSPI gives us the amount that we are authorized to collect and that amount is included in the bar for your consideration.
Are there any questions or comments?
Thank you.
Our next item is item number nine.
BEX I see there is a correction from not BTA IV but BEX IV resolution 2016-17-5 intent to construct the Loyal Heights Elementary School modernization and addition projects.
And I am going to look to our Ops representative tonight.
Okay this motion was discussed at the operations committee on October 20. The committee moved this item forward to the full board with recommendation for approval.
Good evening directors.
My name is Richard Best I am director of capital projects and planning for Seattle Public Schools.
This is a formal process in which you will pass We will seek your approval and I believe you passed by board resolution the intent to construct Loyal Heights Elementary School with state funding dollars.
The State of Washington requires this because school districts previously have implemented projects that were not approved.
funded with state dollars and so they ask that the dollars that come to Loyal Heights Elementary School be utilized for Loyal Heights Elementary School's construction.
This does not tie up, this does not award the bid at this moment in time.
I know that might be an an issue Director Pinkham that you have concerns about.
This is just a resolution that says dollars that we are receiving from the State of Washington will be utilized for the construction of Loyal Heights Elementary School.
And that Loyal Heights will be bid and built as intended for those dollars.
Sorry a poor explanation for a rather simple BAR.
Director Pinkham.
So just to clarify when you say as intended that doesn't mean that we are committing to any architecture plans at this time.
Correct.
You will have the ability to award the bid and to look at the bid alternates.
One of those bid alternates is the two classroom childcare facility.
We intend to bring that to operations committee on December 15th, intro that bid on January 4th.
and then hope that you will take action on January 18.
Are there any other questions or comments?
All right, thank you.
So our next item is item number 10. I think this is in the same realm.
And that is BTA IV constructability review report for the Loyal Heights Elementary School modernization and addition project.
And I again look to our Ops representative.
This motion was discussed at the operation committee meeting on October 20th.
The committee moved this item forward to the full board with recommendation for approval.
So constructability review directors is a way of ensuring that both the drawings and the specifications have a quality control check prior to bidding.
This is made up of a team of outside architects who haven't been involved in the project, engineers and also contractors who will not be working on the project.
In this case because it's a GCCM project we are allowed to use Skanska.
For folks that are not working on this project to review these documents they have come up with a list of items in which they think further clarification is required and the architect has either indicated yes he is providing that clarification and the action is taken or no and why not.
And so you've got that document also attached to your bar request.
We need your approval for the deform process.
Director Burke.
I have a question I haven't done a deep dive in this does the, let me get the exact language, the constructability report is it just for the building or is it the entire site basically does it include the grounds?
It includes the entire project Director Burke.
Okay I know that there was a discussion around that project that when we were talking about different options around a more kind of real estate friendly or more square footage friendly play space.
It would not be reviewing the design to make modifications.
What a constructability review does is it looks at the architects and engineers plans concerning site development and building construction and says as a contractor are these plans sufficient for me to build this project, are there any things that are in conflict in these plans, are there any ambiguities that you could clarify for a contractor to more fully understand what is intended in these plans but it's not looking at making any revisions whatsoever to the design of the project.
It's just making sure that the design is articulated in a manner in which contractors can understand how to bid.
Right, I guess that's my, that goes to the root of my question.
Is the site plan and the landscaping and the play space and the rain gardens that were a potential point of contention and might be a place to reclaim a little bit of play space, has that been reflected already in the plan?
It is reflected as a bid alternate currently in the plan Director Burke.
And so that has been reviewed as well to make sure that firms who are bidding on that understand that bid alternate.
So the two bid alternates that we are talking about that kind of address the contentious topics represent the childcare spaces and then the site landscaping.
Correct.
Perfect.
Thank you so much.
And just for clarification projects normally have between I'm going to say 10 and 20 alternates of this size, projects of this size.
So there is a lot more than just two to review for this constructability team.
Any other questions or comments on this item?
All right we will move on to item 11, BTA IV Magnolia elementary school renovation and addition project value engineering report state funding assistance.
This also went to ops.
This motion was discussed at the operations committee meeting on October 20. The committee moved this item forward to the full board with the recommendation for approval.
So this is early on in the project, the constructability review happens at the end of construction documents.
We call it actually 95% construction documents.
Value engineering happens at the very beginning of the project right at the end of the schematic design phase.
This is another architectural team not involved with the project and engineers that are not involved with the project coming and looking at a project and really brainstorming as to are there ways that the district's value can be enhanced in the implementation of this project.
Are there other building systems that could be utilized than what is being proposed that make more economic sense or and add value to the project.
It is really a brainstorming session and so that is why you will see there was approximately for Magnolia Elementary School there were 51 different value recommendations made of which 42 were rejected.
The nine that were accepted did save a half billion dollars.
It is a process that is required on projects greater than 50,000 square feet and Magnolia Elementary School will be greater than 50,000 square feet when it is constructed.
So your approval is required for our D7 form.
Director Pinkham.
Can I get the total square footage for the site?
You are saying 50,000 for the building itself?
Yeah, the building will be in excess of 50,000 square feet and that is the threshold in which value engineering has to be implemented on a project.
I can give you that, I don't have it tonight but I know that we know that information, Director Pinkham.
I will include that in the Friday memo to the board.
Are there any other questions or comments on this item?
All right, thank you.
We will now move on to item.
Can I ask one clarifying question?
Would you also like to see the site plan in that Friday memo to the board for Magnolia?
Okay.
I jumped into that answer because I know we have all been very interested in all the building plans that have been happening lately and we are sure we are going to have constituents who want to know as well.
All right item 12 BEX IV final acceptance of contract P5065 with Lincoln Construction Incorporated for Jane Addams middle school repurposing and seismic improvements projects phase 2. This also came to the operations committee.
And this motion was also discussed on October 20 by the operations committee.
Committee moved this item forward to the full board with a recommendation for approval.
So this is work that was done at Jane Addams middle school during the summer of 2015. you have in your board package the letter from Huttable and Aremis noting that all of the punch list items are complete and the project was built as the architect intended.
The change orders on this phase of work and this phase was implemented you know started late, I'm going to say late April early May of 2015 was complete in August of 2015. So, there were some expenditures for overtime when additional work was added that wasn't initially anticipated.
We did encounter some unforeseen conditions so I think the change order amount is actually very reasonable.
I look on modernization projects to confirm that we are below 10%.
So we are recommending your approval on this.
Your approval will then allow us to close out this project with the various state agencies and get their closeout documents returned for us and this portion of this project will be done.
Jane Addams Middle School is a four phase project.
Work occurred again this summer.
And work will occur again next summer before the BEX IV project that was identified in the voters in 2012 and voted on in 2013 is complete.
Director Pinkham.
I just want to get some clarification on how you spoke here because what I heard was that you said that the project started late in April or did it start in late April?
It started in late April, early May timeframe.
I don't know the exact date it started.
Yeah, it was just the wording.
It almost sounded like you said it didn't start on time.
No, no.
It started on time.
We did run into some unforeseen conditions during the summer of 2015. We did have to pay some acceleration to the contract to get the work done by the time school opened and that is what I was making reference to it is articulated in Huttabaw and Aremus' letter that is included in the board package.
Yeah I just wanted to hopefully get that clarified that it did start on time.
Thank you.
Are there any other questions or comments?
Seeing none, I believe we have reached the end of our agenda and I call this meeting adjourned at 8-12.
Thank you everyone.
so so Oh...
you