School Board Meeting Date Feb. 3rd, 2016 Pt2

I move that the school board accept a grant of $510,017.94 in a form of a memorandum of understanding.

with the City of Seattle and authorize the superintendent to amend the 2015-16 Seattle Public Schools transportation service standards and to take any necessary actions to implement the MOU.

I second the motion.

Okay thank you Pegi.

Pegi McEvoy assistant superintendent for operations.

I would like to ask the school board to consider modifying the motion as was pointed out during public testimony the attachment is a memorandum of agreement as opposed to a memorandum of understanding.

The difference for us in the district is the fact that an MOA is related to an exchange of money where an MOU is usually related to an exchange of services.

And when we started this process we started with a memorandum of understanding.

However as it evolved and as we continue to work with the city we changed that to an MOA, memorandum of understanding.

Or excuse me a memorandum of.

agreement thank you.

I'm going to get myself confused on this one.

Thank you.

Therefore I'd like to make a friendly amendment to amend the motion language to read a memorandum of agreement and not a memorandum of understanding.

I second that friendly amendment and motion.

Okay do any directors have any questions about the motion to amend?

Okay seeing none I now ask for a vote on the motion to amend.

Okay Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

This motion is passed unanimously.

Thank you for that.

So since we have seen you in introduction on January 6 there has been a great deal of work with the city and as you know these agreements are quite complicated but what we wanted to make sure that we were doing was providing services to our students.

I want to highlight the fact that we did have a meeting on January 14 with the Rainier Beach Transit Justice team who is also here with us.

tonight and I want to acknowledge their advocacy and support and willingness to continue to work with us.

Part of our work will be under school board policy 4110 we are going to be developing a task force.

They have agreed to continue to serve on that because as you know this is the first year of a many-year initiative and we're going to learn a lot.

This is really what we're considering our pilot year so we want to make sure that we do have community members with us as we start to review this.

It will not only involve the students from Rainier Beach but also from students citywide.

And so with that I also want to make sure that we're highlighting some of the other changes that have happened since we were here at introduction so that we can be very transparent about that and I'd like to introduce Kathy Katterhagen who was leading that work along with some of the staff of the City of Seattle.

members of the board, good evening.

I'm Kathy Katterhagen and as Peggy said there's a few other people in the audience who we worked with at the city, Bill Bryant who is the transportation manager for SDOT and Sarah Walton who is the project manager with the city who did quite a bit of work on the MOA.

And so I'm very pleased to bring this action item forward to approve this memorandum of agreement and the amount is $510,017.94 which covers 2,493 student ORCA cards for the remainder of the school year.

Some of the high-level changes since introduction are that we made changes in the bar and the MOA on the number of students.

We initially started at 2,857 and we reduced that to 2,493 because we were able to identify students in programs that were already receiving an ORCA card.

We also refined some of the language in the MOA to reflect and make changes to the term low-income student to state it as students who receive free and reduced lunch.

Also we updated the payment section to clarify, add clarity in the payment process how we are going to pay those invoices and to make sure that we had language that assures that future amendments may be necessary as the number of students that qualify change over time.

Another section in the MOA that was changed was under the section of confidential student information.

We need to ensure that the district does not provide any identifiable student information to the city.

And then one of the last changes was in the miscellaneous provisions section G that was struck out of the MOA.

That was boilerplate language that really didn't apply to the actions of the city.

So we struck that out.

Okay before we proceed on to Director questions and comments I would like to ask Director Blanford to speak to the committee recommendation of this item.

I wasn't a member of the operations committee at the time that this was considered but I am a member of it now and I can see that it was heard or it was considered on the 17th of December and moved to the board for consideration.

And I don't have a reason as to why consideration rather than approval.

Perhaps Pegi McEvoy could speak to that.

We asked for consideration because the MOA had not been finalized and we wanted to make sure that the board had that before we asked you to rule on it.

Thank you.

Are there any questions?

Director Harris.

Thank you.

What happens next year?

And then the second question is we heard testimony tonight that said the report rejected using yellow buses but cites no data for this rejection.

Yellow buses are generally cheaper, safer and give better service according to past presentations to the board.

Can you talk to either or both of those please?

Can you read that one more time please?

The testimony we heard earlier this evening confuses me.

The report rejected using yellow buses but cites no data for this rejection.

In perens yellow buses are generally cheaper, safer and give better service according to past presentations to the board.

Cost per student?

So in the past yellow buses have not been necessarily cheaper transportation for our students.

One of the things that we have worked very hard on with our ORCA passport program is actually reducing those costs.

So we have been, have gotten a very very good program from them.

We appreciate the cooperation from Metro and our partners in the city because of that.

But at this point it is more cost-effective for us to be able to have our students on Metro than in yellow buses in most situations.

And what happens next year?

Well next year.

So this funding will be continuing if the pilot program is successful and so when we come back to the transportation standards in front of you we will be bringing this as part of that package for you to consider.

We will have to have another MOA with the city and again you will be voting on that with the transportation standards also.

That would be for the following year.

We may need to come back in August to update the 2016-17 transportation standards because you have already voted on those.

So there will be a couple of times that you will see us to make sure that we can continue this program.

Thank you.

Director Blanford.

In the presentation that we heard on this there was an issue around or there was a discussion about eligibility and the fact that I am assuming that the City of Seattle doesn't require, they require in aggregate, I am assuming in aggregate the number of students who are eligible as opposed to which students are eligible.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Let me just add that when we were working through this process one of the things that we wanted to make sure that we were not releasing any free and reduced lunch data individually by students.

We are asking parents to sign a waiver so that we can look at their data and make sure that they qualify but then the information that we are sending to the city will be aggregate data not identifiable by student.

And that wasn't an issue of contention I would imagine that because the city has to respond in similar ways around student data that that wouldn't be an issue of contention would it be?

It was not at the first meeting they readily agreed to that.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions or comments?

Director Burke.

I am hoping you can help me reconcile the numbers because it looks like there is an estimated per card cost of $204.58 and there is a total fiscal impact of $510,017.

On the amended, the revised bar the number of students served has changed but the per unit cost and total has not.

So I'm trying to understand when we went from 2857 students served to 2493 does that also adjust the total or does that adjust the unit cost or do I misunderstand?

The unit cost per card is the same for the remainder of the school year.

We can purchase as many cards as we can for the total dollar amount of $510,000 and $17.94.

Thank you for the clarification.

Are there any other questions or comments?

Okay seeing none I now ask Ms. Fody for the vote on the motion as amended.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

This motion is passed unanimously.

Okay we now have a second item for action and that is the BEX IV Cascadia Elementary School and Robert Eagle Staff Middle School formerly Wilson Pacific approval of change order number 04 to change the roofing system to multiply modified bituminous roof membrane system at both schools.

I move that school board approve change order number four for the bid alternate number arch 03 for changing the roofing system from the currently specified single-ply thermoplastic membrane roofing to the multi-ply modified bituminous membrane roofing systems at both schools.

in the amount of $452,203 plus Washington State sales tax with any minor additions, deletions and modifications deemed necessary and for the superintendent to take any action, any necessary action to implement this action.

Immediate action is in the best interest of the school district to keep the project on schedule.

Roofing is scheduled to start in March of 2016. I second the motion.

So Richard Best Director of Capital Projects and Planning for Seattle Public Schools.

This is a change order amendment that exceeds $250,000 so by your board policy 6220 we need to bring this change order to the school board for approval.

The capital projects office is recommending this change.

The three-ply SPS modified roofing system is the facilities department's preferred roofing system and we have an experienced greater life with a three-ply SPS modified roofing system as compared to a single-ply membrane roofing system.

Single-ply membrane roofing systems generally are more susceptible to damage by vandalism And so subsequently.

We have gone through the greater portions of risk on this construction project meaning that the foundations for both the elementary school and the middle school have been installed.

The catch basin systems, the stormwater systems on site have been installed.

We are almost ready to place asphalt paving so all of the site work underground, the unforeseen conditions.

have been addressed.

We do not believe that we have substantial unforeseen conditions for the remainder of the project.

And we think that this substitution and change order adds value to the project that will serve the district longer in duration than the single ply roofing system.

So that's why we're making this recommendation to you to approve change order number three for Wilson Pacific.

Do any directors have any questions or comments?

Committee.

Oh, yes.

Okay.

This I believe would have gone through.

Operations.

Right.

And do you have that in front of you?

Can you please speak to that?

This item was heard before the operations committee on January 21 and was moved forward for approval.

We will note that it was moved for, it was considered for intro and action at this meeting.

And the rationale for that is that the contractor has erected the structural steel at the elementary school.

He is in the process of erecting structural steel at the middle school.

They are placing the roof trusses at the elementary school and they asked us, we began negotiating this change order in November.

At the time we thought the March date, March 2nd approval date would be adequate.

They've asked us if we could move this up to approval tonight.

So that's why we've asked for both introduction and action tonight.

We generally do not do that.

We know that's not the board's preference as well.

Thank you.

Are there any questions or comments?

Director Harris.

What happened?

I'm in favor of doing the best job we can for the longest life but why did it go from one-ply to three-ply is that something that the contractor changed?

No Director Harris when we opened bids we had as an additive alternate the three-ply roofing system.

We opened our bids, we constructed a project, we selected some alternates and that's actually in your board package, the alternates we selected.

It's behind the placeholder change order number three with Leidig COP 065. The alternates that you see in yellow on my document here are the alternates we selected.

The roofing alternate was also considered at the time of award.

We stayed within the contract amount.

We have gone through the high risk portion of this project and we have not spent much of our construction contingency.

We think we are getting greater value with the selection of this bid alternate and so we are coming back to you at this time to ask you to consider exchanging the single ply roofing system for the three ply roofing system.

Director Burke.

I was wondering if you can speak qualitatively or quantitatively to the lifetime difference between the single ply and the multiply.

Do we have this bituminous multiply on any of our existing buildings and is it holding up well?

We have this three ply SPS modified system on a significant amount of our existing buildings.

We do have some schools that have a single-ply.

We've experienced a greater amount of vandalism on the single-ply roofing systems and so therefore we are not experiencing the longevity that we would like to see with a single-ply roofing system as compared to the three-ply.

Three-ply is much harder to vandalize than a single-ply.

And you'll actually on the cap sheet you actually have granules on a three-ply system.

It's a smooth cap sheet on a single-ply system.

Thanks if it works for trash bags it must work for roofing right?

Are there any other questions or comments?

Director Pinkham.

I just want to, I guess, I hate to see the Indian heritage high school go away but to see that, looking at the progress there and that the murals were preserved and seeing them up again.

I haven't been out to the site but I've just been seeing the pictures there and appreciate the work that went into at least preserving the murals.

Definitely want to see that any schools that we build are the best that we can afford and if we do have the budget let's make sure that we get the three-ply versus the one-ply.

And appreciate the work that you are doing.

Thank you.

I just have one question.

So what is Leidig Construction's history of change orders?

Above, below, or typical frequency?

Below.

Below, okay.

Thank you.

If there are no other comments or questions I would like to ask Ms. Fodey for the roll call.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

This motion is passed unanimously.

Okay we now move on to the introduction part of the meeting.

We have two items for introduction now.

I moved that the school board, oops I'm sorry.

So the first one is a BTA III.

BTA III final acceptance of public works contract K5040 edifice construction company for phase one of the Columbia school modernization project.

Okay over to you Director Blanford.

This is an intro item so you don't require a motion.

Oh okay so the committee recommendation.

This item was considered by the operations committee on January 21 and was moved forward for approval by the board.

Thank you.

So this is work that was performed for Seattle Public Schools in the summer of 2014 by Edifice Construction Company.

The work is complete and your approval will allow us to get final documents from three state agencies.

The Department of Revenue, the Department of Labor and Industries, and the Department of Employment Securities.

That will then close out all of the paperwork associated with this project and it will be placed behind us.

But we do need the board to accept this project.

The work performed under phase 1 was asbestos and hazardous material abatement, some architectural and structural improvements, and then the labor materials and equipment that edifice construction provided.

Are there any questions or comments about this item?

Director Burke.

I want to thank you for the work on the closeout checklist which came up in some committee discussions to include some additional sign off and it looks like to me that that has been added and I really appreciate that.

Any other questions or comments?

Thank you Mr. Best.

Let's move on to our final introduction item.

BTA III final acceptance of public works contract K5051 Regency Northwest Construction Incorporated for phase 2 of the Columbia school modernization project.

Let's see I'm assuming that's also an operations committee item.

It is indeed.

I heard on the 21st of January move forward to the board for approval.

Similar to the other item this is work that was performed by Regency Northwest Construction.

This work was performed in the summer of 2015 in which we implemented some classroom modernization infrastructure and technology upgrades at Columbia.

school and this is a phase 2 project and again to get the three state agencies letters of completion we need your approval.

Are there any questions or comments?

Director Pinkham.

Yeah the point put out as far as in the comments, is that percentage correct?

I don't have a calculator in front of me and I can't do that fast math in my head.

On the percentage of the change order on the memo it says the change order amount was $40,790.29 or 9.21% of the base contract of $442,000.

And I assume they had a trusted calculator that said that's 7.44%.

The contract amount would have been $442,000 and the change order amount that I'm looking at Director Pinkham is $40,790.

So it's close I'm not doing the math it's close to 10% which I'm going to guess the 9.2% is correct.

And there is a memorandum behind the change order memo also indicating it's 9.21%.

And that's based upon just the 44, 442 not the final total of 528, 68?

Correct.

The 442 it's based upon.

Okay so then I actually see the total change orders that does say 7.44% but the grand total changes, okay.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions or comments about this item?

All right thank you very much.

Thank you.

Well we have now reached the end of our agenda.

As there is no further business before the board the meeting stands adjourned at 7.02.

Please enjoy that because I think the next meeting will be very different.