School Board Meeting Date June 15th, 2016 Pt.2

I move that the board approve the 2016-17 student rights and responsibilities document as attached to the board action report.

I second the motion.

Any questions comments?

questions or comments.

Okay no questions or comments.

Director Burke.

I just wanted to make a quick comment on this.

Thank the staff for the work and recognizing that this is a continuous work in process the student rights and responsibilities handbook.

Right now it's a little bit thick and it's sort of it has a legalese feel to it.

that I think we are in the process of trying to shake out and I just want to recognize that publicly and also the effort that is being done to make this more student friendly, family friendly and thank the team for their work on that.

We will continue to support this work every year and look forward to it next year as well.

Any more comments?

Questions?

Director Blanford.

I didn't hear a committee recommendation on this one.

Oh yes the C&I.

Yeah this did come through C&I on May 9 for consideration pending some amendments that are incorporated into this that you will notice in the BAR.

Ms. Ritchie.

Roll call.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

This motion passed unanimously.

Okay our second action item 2016-2017 families and education levy FEL contracts.

I move that the board authorize the superintendent to accept the grant funds totaling $15,469,124 for the families and education levy FEL funded programs with the City of Seattle's Department of Education and Early Learning for the family support worker, elementary, middle and high school innovation, middle school linkage, school nurses, out of school activities, transportation and sports programs.

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

This item came to the Audit and Finance Committee on May 12 earlier this year and the committee reviewed the motion and moved the item forward for consideration by the full board.

I think we had some questions that we wanted to answer and that's why it was for consideration.

Second the motion.

Any questions, comments?

Director Blanford.

I just want to say for the record that I think I speak for the entire organization and am grateful to the citizens of Seattle for $15 million that they are providing us to help us do the critical work of educating the students of Seattle.

I know from having spent enough time in public education that we are the envy of many districts around the country that wish that they had an additional $15 million.

to do important work around closing gaps and improving outcomes for all of our students and so it's easy sometimes to get lost, to lose sight of the generosity as we are just shuffling paper from one, you know voting on things.

But I think it's important for us to take a moment and think about how important these funds are to our mission and when we have the opportunity to thank the citizens of Seattle for their generosity.

Director Peters.

I would just like to add to that that I also appreciate the responsiveness of the family and education levy committee to allocating more funds for the family support workers.

That is something that we had expressed interest in and so did other members of the community throughout the city.

And I look forward to the city and the district working together in partnership.

This is a significant amount of money and it is my hope that it can be allocated in ways that meet the needs of the district in accordance with the district's goals as well.

I do would like to echo what Director Blanford and Director Peters about this family education levy for really supporting a lot of the work that we do here in the district.

We know that without this extra funds that we would not be able to do many of the things that we are doing right now in terms of not being fully funded by the state.

So we want to say thank you to all the citizens of Seattle and also to the city for supporting us with the families and education levy.

I don't see any more questions or comments.

Ms. Ritchie.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

This motion is passed unanimously.

Our third action item BEX IV and PTA IV Lincoln High School approval of general contractor construction manager GC slash CM delivery method and resolution 2015 slash 16-18.

Can we hear from the board?

Oh, I'm sorry.

I move that the school board one, authorize the superintendent to use the general contractor construction manager GCCM alternative construction delivery method pursuant to RCW 39.10 for Lincoln High School and two, approve resolution 2015-16, sorry 2015-16-18 pursuant to RCW 39.10.280 as attached to the board action report.

Second the motion.

Can we hear from the Chair of Ops?

This item was heard by the Ops Committee on May 19 and moved forward to the full board with a recommendation for approval.

Thank you.

Any comments?

Any questions?

I don't see any.

Ms. Ritchie.

Director Burke.

Director Geary aye.

Director Harris aye.

Director Peters aye.

Director Pinkham aye.

Director Blanford aye.

Director Patu aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

Our fourth action item BEX IV and BTA IV Lincoln High School approval of G.C.

C.M.

contract P. 5 0 8 4 to Leidig Construction Incorporated.

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to utilize the general contractor construction manager GCCM alternative construction delivery method on the Lincoln High School project and award contract P5084 to Leida Construction Incorporated.

Second the motion.

Chair Bopps.

This item was heard on May 19 and moved forward for consideration.

Excuse me for a second I don't know that I read the entire motion.

I think I had an abbreviated version.

Do I need to read the entire motion?

I think I do.

All right so I want to insert after Lydig Construction Incorporated.

This authorizes the GCCM contractor to immediately provide pre-construction services for an amount not to exceed $300,000.

This approval also authorizes the superintendent to negotiate with any minor additions, deletions and modifications to the agreement as deemed necessary and signed a contract amendment for the guaranteed maximum price GMP as defined by the RCW 39.10.370 for an amount not to exceed $56,749,750 which includes specified general conditions, negotiated support services, the maximum allowable construction costs, MACC, including subcontractor bonds, the MACC contingency and the GCCM fee, excluding Washington State sales tax no earlier than completion of 90% of construction documents unless otherwise agreed to by the parties.

The GMP excludes the pre-construction services allowance.

Do I hear a second?

Second the motion.

This item was still heard on May 19 and moved forward for consideration.

Can I ask why it isn't in consideration?

I believe we are still negotiating.

We had just received actually the bid documents from Lydig construction I believe the day before.

This went to operations.

Director Patu.

So you are complete?

Pardon me?

Correct.

They were not complete.

Oh they are not complete.

They are complete now yes.

Okay that's what I asked.

Thank you.

Director Peters.

I have one question that was brought up during public testimony and that has to do with the environmental impact statements.

What is the status of the EIS for this project?

Okay so I'm going to start off by introducing myself Richard Best director of capital projects and planning for Seattle Public Schools.

Lincoln High School is actually included in the BEX IV programmatic environmental impact statement.

What was contemplated in BTA IV is adding additional funds for systems, building systems that we believed and the capital projects office would not be modernized.

Given that we had staff and students out of the building, Director Peters, we determined it would be a good time to upgrade those systems as well.

Systems are not, building systems are not required to go through a programmatic environmental impact statement.

what the impact from this project is actually putting the 1600 kids in the comprehensive high school to that neighborhood and that was actually contemplated in BEX IV and we did implement a programmatic environmental impact statement in BEX IV that included Lincoln High School.

So the associated impacts to that neighborhood were included discussed in the programmatic EIS for BEX IV.

Thank you.

Dr. Burke.

I wanted to follow up on some concerns that I had raised at introduction.

One of the things about this item that gives me pause is that we are coupling the pre-construction services of $300,000 and the approval authority of the superintendent to execute a contract up to the $56,749,000.

56 million.

Sorry let me throw a couple more digits on there.

56,749,750.

The fiduciary part of that makes me uncomfortable that it feels like we are in some sense issuing a blank check without having seen a 90% complete design which is as I read it the deliverable on the pre-construction services.

And I'm wondering if you can speak to that point historically and what is our risk as a district.

Sure historically Director Burke pre-construction services have been included as part of the guaranteed maximum price.

In the GCCM construction process we actually bring the general contractor in as a participant on the design team.

His incentive is that he eventually wants to build that project.

And so consequently he is able to give us, we provide guidance in how much money that we have available to build the project so hence the $56,749,750 notation in the bar and in the contract.

And then he provides guidance to us as to the best ways to build the project to not exceed that construction amount.

Generally if we are able to bid the project and have all the bidders total up the bid and be below $56,749,750 you have authorized this project to proceed with your action tonight.

If it is slightly over we would be coming back to you for approval to adjust the contract amount to proceed and I don't know, we haven't bid this project or we're not nearly at 90% completion.

We're just beginning, we're at the end of schematic design.

And so you'll have opportunities to provide guidance and input and there will be several community meetings as well in which the community provides guidance and input.

And so from a historical perspective, when we go from the stage we are now, sort of at a schematic design level and go through those processes, the director input, the community input, more development around the programmatic aspects of the building, what has been our history of maintaining that… Guaranteed maximum price.

That guarantee, that GMP, guaranteed maximum price.

I can't speak to our history long back.

Our recent history has been fairly good.

We did come for an adjustment to the Wilson Pacific contract amount.

Olympic Hills escapes me as to whether we sought an adjustment.

I believe we actually bid that project within the project budget.

We did seek approval for a D9 form that OSPI requires that you just affirm that you are utilizing the GCCM construction amount and you would authorize the project for the guaranteed maximum price.

So, but this is typical of contracts for GCCM construction.

You have a pre-negotiated services amount and then you list the guaranteed maximum price.

That historically we have done.

I just can't speak to all the projects and whether they met their guaranteed maximum price or not.

But this is historically how we've implemented GCCM projects for Seattle Public Schools and it's a very standard practice.

for other public agencies as well.

It's implemented in this manner.

Perfect, thanks.

I really appreciate that clarity.

I have one last question.

In the contract documents I noticed that there's an indication for contingency fees of I believe 2.5 to 5%.

Correct.

Is that contingency already included in this amount or would that be above and beyond if it has to be executed?

That contractor's contingency is included in that amount.

Perfect thank you so we've got a little bit of headroom already.

Yes we do.

Thank you.

Superintendent Nyland.

I was going to add that having the contractor come in early is really to our advantage because otherwise we would just bid the process without that knowledge.

And then you have a history of sometimes missing it by more.

So bringing the contractor in and having them look at the bid documents through a contractor's It basically does save us money because they see places where the job can be done more efficiently and more effectively.

So I don't see any upside risk.

It's still bid through the subs but we get to do that with the benefit of a contractor's view in advance.

Correct.

Any more questions?

Comments?

Ms. Ritchie.

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 now going into our introduction items.

I just want to congratulate Scott Pinkham.

Today is his anniversary.

Happy anniversary from all of us.

You have more to come.

Principal Association for Seattle Schools collective bargaining agreement.

Good evening Director, Superintendent Clover Codd, Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources.

So this item is really on the agenda tonight as a placeholder.

We are currently in the midst of bargaining with the Principals Association of Seattle Schools and expect to bring you a contract to approve on July 6. Our hope is to finish bargaining by June 30. I think it's important for you to know that we've entered into an interest-based bargaining process with PASS.

It's very important to Superintendent Nyland that we collaborate with our labor partners and work together to solve collective problems of the district on behalf of our students.

So, our number one goal is to ensure that we are able to recruit, develop, and retain a high-quality principal and assistant principal core.

We anticipate bringing you a three-year contract.

I'll open it up for questions at this time.

I don't have very many details.

Again, this is a placeholder.

Director Burke.

As you indicated this is interest-based bargaining.

I think you probably heard one of the interests of the principals today.

I think we did.

Let's work together to close the opportunity and achievement gaps.

Dr. Blanford.

Is the intent to give us time to review, let me start again.

How much time will we have to review the contract before we have to take action on it?

Well that's a really good question so we anticipate finishing up all of our language on the 23rd of June hopefully and settling all of the matters on June 30 which would be a really quick turnaround to try to get you a package to review probably by the 2nd of July.

I don't know how I could do it any sooner it will take me a couple of days to turn the language around but that's the timeline.

And so it would not be intro and action on the same board meeting?

Well what we are doing is intro tonight, we would do action on July 6. I don't know what would happen if we weren't ready or I guess we would wait until August to do action if we weren't, if we hadn't finalized the negotiations.

Or if perhaps the board needed more time to review.

Director Harris.

We've been hearing a lot about site-based management.

Will this contract address some of those responsibilities and accountability for site-based management?

Well site-based management as determined in Seattle Public Schools is a really important part of our collective bargaining agreement with the Seattle Education Association.

So site-based management does not just mean the principals making the decisions.

It means that SEA is coming together with the principal on the building leadership team and they are making decisions and SEA always has a two-thirds vote when we are looking at the budget, the professional development plan and the CSIP that is how our site-based management works in Seattle.

We are bringing greater accountability to the evaluation process, principal scorecard, we are looking at moving some things around there.

I don't know how specific I can get because we are in the midst of negotiations but we know that that is important that we are solving problems at the building level and that it is really about mutual accountability but yes we are addressing that.

Director Blanford.

So to the question about the principal's interest in equity, I'm wondering if you can share and maybe you can and if you can't I understand completely given the status of the agreement or the negotiations.

But I'm wondering if you can share anything that helps us to understand how the contract might actually embed some ability for the principals to push on equity on an equity agenda.

Do you understand my question?

I totally understand your question I'm just not sure I can on the spot answer it in a coherent and

So if our interests being as it is interest-based bargaining, if our interests are indeed about closing our gaps, what stance would we have taken going into the negotiations?

Well I think we are looking at things like culture and climate of the building as being a really important indicator of the climate of the building is directly correlated to student achievement.

I think that is one part of the conversation.

I think we are looking at mutual accountability.

We are also looking at the retention of our principals.

When you have turnover, turnover, turnover that is not good for students.

So other than that I don't know that I can talk specifically about what is going on in negotiations.

Well I know that literature would suggest that principal professional development is a key catalyst in closing gaps and improving instruction overall.

not remembering that being in there?

So we are having discussions about principal professional development as well as assistant principal professional development and mentorship all of those things are on the table to discuss.

Well I look forward to seeing the contract.

Thank you.

Any more questions?

Comments?

Thank you.

Resolution 2015 slash 16-19 approval of 2016-17 operating and capital budget.

Can I ask the chair of A&F for your recommendation?

I'd be happy to do it if you need.

Okay this came to the Audit and Finance Committee as well as several board work sessions and then we discussed it at the June 9 Audit and Finance Committee meeting.

We've discussed it multiple times.

Okay.

So you've made no recommendations?

I don't see a recommendation on here and I'm not sure if.

The sheet I have says a recommendation for approval.

Yeah, the one I have doesn't.

Alright, go ahead Linda.

Linda Sebring budget director.

I'm pleased to present the superintendent's recommended 16-17 budget for the next school year.

I do remember it was recommended to go forward for approval but if we missed documenting something I apologize.

So I have a very quick presentation here.

I know we've got a lot on your agenda to talk about the budget that's coming forward to you.

I also wanted to call everybody's attention to a much more detailed version of the budget which is online.

Our publishing department here has also been asked to make some copies for public members and they will do that for a fee with sales tax.

So if people would like to look at the budget book it has been heavily revamped this year in response to community questions, comments and areas that were confusing to people over time.

So our goal is to improve communication always and become more transparent.

The school section is completely new and there are sections even about the city of Seattle and the demographics in which we support the students.

So I highly encourage everybody in our community to please take a read in If there are further improvements we can make we are always open to getting that feedback and we don't want to make it too much bigger because it is rather large.

So jumping right in.

The budget, we call it budget or budgets, is four different funds.

I know we've talked about this in our work sessions to some extent.

The resolution that if you approve this budget you will be signing will be dealing with this section, the expenditures.

You are authorizing us to expend up to $789.7 million in the general fund, $6.7 million for the associated student body fund.

$20.4 million for the debt service and $274.5 million in the capital fund.

The total expenditures is almost $1.1 billion.

Some of the details on the general fund is some variances and I apologize somehow the edits don't show up on this.

There were some changes that were made after the audit.

June 9 audit and finance meeting.

Two particular changes.

One is we run a little bit ahead of the state in our estimating so we are trying to anticipate everything they do and there was an issue out at the end of May adjusting the calculation for our local property tax levy.

So, sometimes when those come out we run the formulas, we negotiate with SEA or the office of superintendent of public instruction to determine is our calculation accurate or did we miss something.

And on this one unfortunately we missed something.

There was a change to what is known as the ghosting formula.

Which is in flux right now as the state provides more funding for us things that they have given us ability to collect levy on in the ghosting needs to start coming away and what we don't have is the blueprint for how fast is it going to come out of ghosting.

So we are in effect counting some things maybe twice on our levy and I know OSPI knows this and one of the factors was removed from the levy calculation.

The input, what this did to us is it reduced our local levy.

Previously what you have seen was $198.8 million.

It is now $197.8 million.

So we lost a million dollars of revenue from our estimates.

Because we run ahead of OSPI and a lot of the state we had a budget reserve that we put together at the beginning of our budget development in October for things like utility increases, transportation, unforeseen issues.

We have not dissolved that yet.

We do not liquidate that fund and move it into our contingency fund until after the budget is adopted by OSPI.

So what we are proposing to do is we will remove a million dollars from our revenue estimate.

We will reduce our budget development reserve by a million dollars.

It does not change anything we are asking the board to do as far as expenditures because we have taken out an expense.

So if you would like to ask questions about that because it is a little complicated.

Director Blanford.

I heard from a couple constituents who also happen to be city employees who reviewed the budget and said that there were some issues with, I'm wondering if it is this or if it's a different issue.

So I understand the issue that you are addressing.

I had not planned to talk about it but I will.

So yes, the City of Seattle called.

I appreciate them looking at our budget book and asking questions.

And I will talk a little bit about what we have done with grants and part of it was affecting the City of Seattle's how things are presented but another part is a timing difference.

So let me get to another page and then I will talk about that if I could.

Thank you.

Any other questions on the levy?

Okay.

So great, this looked good on my screen.

I always have to bring things down here.

So what we wanted to show here is, and I'm going to go back for just a second, one of the highlights we talked about in one of the board presentations was the federal funds and this reduction of $12.3 million.

And a portion of that is being caused by the change in accounting.

Part of the feedback we were receiving from the public was you guys are budgeting to spend all this money on teaching and you don't spend that much money on teaching.

Why don't you budget things accurately?

Part of building a budget this large is we build in capacity and we've discussed that in detail in the budget book as well.

But it's a placeholder for new grants coming in, potentially grants that aren't spent this year that will carry over to next year.

Schools carry funds from one year to the next.

It's different schools each year.

It's numbers that are difficult to pinpoint as to which source is going to come in that we don't know about when we lock the budget.

And we lock the budget at a point in time, typically the beginning part of May, so that we can put all these details together, make sure everything reconciles for you, and that we're confident that our revenues cover our expenditures.

So but this question just kept coming up you know you budget for a lot more than you spend and we're like well we should actually dig into that and what we found when we looked at it was that 50% of our gap between what we budgeted and what we expended was being caused by 10% of our funds or the grants.

And what is happening with our grants is we are carrying some forward from one year to the next.

We aren't necessarily getting as many new ones as we anticipate getting and our grants have been fairly flat.

We looked at a three-year trend.

We have been having about mid-60s, 64, 65 million of grants but our budget for grants kept going up.

So we dug into it and we said let's dial back the capacity we put in there which used to be $16 million for new grants and carryover.

And also we recognize that we were using the budget as a placeholder for I got an award for this amount let me put it in the budget.

The budget is supposed to be a reflection of what we are planning to spend during this period of time.

It wasn't.

Some of that funds when people get things like the city of Seattle we have incentive pay.

So they may give us an award but we are not going to get it all to spend in next school year.

Some of it will be available for the 17-18 school year.

So the question Director Blanford about what is the perception the city of Seattle has is it looks like their awards to the district had gone down because we took out the incentive pay from the budget and we will be reflecting that in the 17-18 school year.

But we had not clearly communicated that in the narrative.

So what we have done is we have updated the online.

Sorry, I can't change your printed copy.

But we have updated the online budget and we have communicated this with the City of Seattle to show, explain what we were doing and why the budget again is a reflection of what we are planning on spending next school year.

It should not be the award for the whole amount.

There was another issue also with the levies coming through the City of Seattle in that they don't all come in before we have to lock our budget.

There were some that were just coming in last week so again they are not going to be reflected on the school pages because they weren't authorized in time.

We will be loading them for the schools, we will be taking them out of that capacity amount and that was a misunderstanding from the city is you know they have their spreadsheets of here is what we are awarding everybody but they haven't necessarily got all that information to us and they are still working through their processes.

So what we have committed to doing is we will have some more discussions next year so we can have a clear understanding of our timelines and their timelines and how we can try to reflect things better for what the schools are supporting and the funds they are providing.

Thanks for that explanation.

So again the federal revenues are not going down by 12.3 million.

They are actually 10 million of that was capacity that we pushed down.

And this slide was to try to visually show that and again I apologize it's not showing up very well here but what we wanted to show is the blue bar with the yellow on top was what we budgeted for grants and the yellow was the capacity we had and then the red was what actually occurred each of these years.

So you see the 63.5 million, the 65 million, the 64 million and we are still in the middle of the 15-16 school year but the budget up here it's up about here kept creeping up and the grants are staying about the same.

Grants come and go it doesn't mean we are not bringing in great grants for great things it's just some are reaching the end of their life and they are leaving and the new ones are coming in.

So what we wanted to show here is we now have 7 million over here which is still more than we have spent in this year and what we are anticipating spending in 15-16.

So we believe even by pushing it down slightly and getting it better aligned with our planned expenditures that we will not in any way prevent ourselves from being able to incorporate new grants received during this year.

So there's an asterisk on this page under teaching and this was driving a lot of the questions we were getting from the community which was you budget to spend this much on teaching and you don't and you budget to spend less on your other activities and you spend more.

and part of that was that was where the grant capacity was in teaching because the majority of our grants that come in are not for central admin or other support they are for teaching activities or teaching support.

So we recognize that part of that grant underspend was affecting our budget of teaching as a percentage of the total.

So again teaching went up but it went up more than the 6.4 it's just having that reflection of the accounting adjustment crosses multiple things.

What I wanted to share here was a new slide that came to our attention.

We heard from a few community members last year that back many many years ago the district had had discussions about direct services to schools and support services.

And we had kind of lost that conversation and people were perceiving that the school funding formula, the weighted staffing standard was the direct services to schools.

and that 50% of our budget was all we were sending out to work with the schools.

And we wanted to help people understand that that's not really a good reflection, that there are nurses out in schools, there's custodians out in schools, there's bus drivers, they don't work in this building, they are directly working with students, food service workers.

And so what we did was we went through without trying to have a preconceived conclusion and added up what all those things cost and then look at it as a percentage of total.

and we are looking at 81% direct, 19% support and because I know people are very interested in this we also put the reference at the bottom which is on page 65 we show our math of all the details of how we came up with these dollar amounts and how much is in those different categories.

This slide on maintenance supplies and operating costs we talked about I know in our last work session it is required by the legislature to at some point during our budget presentation with our board and we are doing it twice.

They give us kind of the latitude of what does that mean.

We are supposed to identify the revenue we get for maintenance supplies and operating costs from the state and how much we are budgeting to spend on maintenance supplies and operating costs.

It further goes on to say that if the state is providing more for what is called MSOCs then we are spending on MSOCs we need to disclose what we are spending the funds on.

Seattle does not have that problem.

Our revenue does not exceed our current planned MSOC expenditures and I know there are further discussions going on that may increase the MSOC expenditures even more.

So the next steps here is there is a public hearing next Thursday for the public to come and it is the official public hearing.

There have been notices in the Seattle Times, there is going to be another one this week, there was one last week announcing the public hearing.

I know it is on our webpage, it is on the budget offices portion of the webpage.

On July 6 we have the board scheduled to vote on an adopted budget.

And then as I was pointing out earlier we get a little ahead of some things.

The ESD and I apologize for the acronym the educational service district on July 10th looks at our budget to make sure there aren't any errors like the $1 million one we just caught.

And then they tell us if there are any errors we need to fix it.

If anything was materially found on that that would adjust what the board voted on we would have to come back to the board and ask for another vote.

Most districts do it after that but because of our timeline and because I know there is not another session in July we do it earlier.

August 8 By then we are spending the month of July and part of August actually technically loading the budget into our financial system so that our principals and program managers can start putting in purchase orders for activities for next school year.

And then September 3 is another date required by the state for approving the budget.

Director Harris.

We heard a figure during public testimony that somehow the Seattle Public Schools has a 60 million dollar rainy day fund and I'm wondering where that might be hidden.

I'd really like them to read the budget books.

We try to explain that that is the reserve is what they're looking at.

And the reserve is made up of the economic stabilization fund which is the three and a quarter percent that the board directs us to set aside.

But it's also made up of things such as school carry forwards.

So when schools get funding from a variety of sources including we let them have underspend in their school funding formula, the weighted staffing standard to carry from one year to another school year, that shows up in the reserve amount at the end of the school year.

So a large portion is the school reserves, there is the board's reserve, there is also things like non-spendable inventory.

All of the napkins we have and food services all get added up at the end of the year and gets added in there.

There is also when we get grants they provide the money in advance but we haven't yet done the service to earn the grant.

Those funds are in our reserve balance.

Our federal funds are reimbursable grants but others sometimes they give us the money in advance.

So it's a combination of things and again we tried to explain it in the budget book and would like to refer people there to look at it.

It is not a full runny days fund.

Director Blanford.

And so based on what you just said that $60 million the only amount of money that we could redistribute to I think that was ORCA K8 that was testifying that we should expend funds from the rainy day fund would be the dollars that are either that we have already set policy and said that we'll have a certain amount of money that is in reserve or the school underspend.

Yes, and ORCA may be part of that money.

I haven't checked whether they have a carry forward from last year to this year and it varies by school every year.

And the board policy on the board's economic stabilization fund is very restrictive.

So I believe there's only some very limited purposes where you can tap into it unless you choose to change the policy.

I know that's the case.

The reason I'm asking the question is because If someone doesn't have a deep understanding of what we are calling the rainy day fund or the reserve fund they would just see a big pocket of money that they think we could make allocation decisions but one of the worst allocation decisions reallocation decisions we could make would be to take underspend money from one school and give it to a different school.

Correct.

And I think that's an important, if that person were here that would be something that would be important for the person that was testifying to understand and I know I've got a community meeting and I know there are some people that are concerned about budget issues so that would be something that would be important to share with our communities.

I can try to find the page in the budget book and help you out in your conversation if you'd like.

And if we are still, it seems to be one of the biggest challenges for communication is people look at our ending fund balance and they are like okay this is available to spend and some of it also in this year when 15-16 ends we will have at least $10 million actually $13 million that is set aside to balance 16-17.

So when we say we are using one-time money from one year to the next it also shows up in the ending fund balance of the year we are not using it.

So I anticipate that the ending fund balance at the end of 15-16 will go up even higher because of this movement of money from one year to another.

Director Harris.

So is that where the $11 million of one-time only spend comes from?

That's a question I'm getting from everywhere.

So the 11 million that Director Harris is referring to is the district has identified in the current school year that we have a variety of savings from a variety of places and we want to have some discussion about how should we invest those resources.

The bulk of the resources are coming from savings due to vacant positions and how long they are potentially out there.

So, what will end up happening with that funds is if we do not spend it this year, which is one of the options, although we are almost done with the school year, it will end up in the fund balance.

So, if it is directed to be spent in the 16-17 budget, it is not there yet.

We haven't finished the school year, that will be August 31. It will increase the amount of one-time money we are spending to balance the 16-17 budget.

So if it's spent on one-time things then it is in 16-17 and doesn't add to our planning requirements for 17-18.

Dr. Harris.

We have a budget hearing coming up on the 23rd and realistically no changes are going to be made based on folks testifying at the budget hearing.

And that this is a statutory requirement.

Is that correct?

Not necessarily.

There can be changes made at the public hearing.

What we have proposed for you is, I'll go back to the actual proposal that is the statutory piece which is the expenditure line.

So what we have done, what we have tried to do here is reflect in our budget documents that we have enough revenue to back up $789.7 million worth of expenditures.

There are several commitments that have been made, staffing deadlines that we have already passed but other things could shift around in the budget.

Is there anything in the statute that prevents us from having earlier budget hearings to where the public can feel as though their input is heard?

There is nothing that prevents us from having multiple community meetings at any time.

There is a legal requirement to have a public hearing before we adopt the budget.

So whether that's you know we have public testimony right before you vote or whether what we have done is with previous boards they have said that doesn't work for me I want at least a week between I hear from the community and when I vote on the budget.

Dr. Nyland.

We're light years ahead of time-wise other districts.

The statute says that we would release a copy of the budget on July 10. We would schedule the two public hearings and we would adopt the budget by the end of August.

And in that time frame your points well taken.

We're required to get all this input, but by then we've gone through the edits with the ESD, we've done all of the preliminary information, and we could take it under consideration that it would be something that would have to change after the budget was adopted.

So we are at least moving our processes up somewhat in order to provide greater opportunities for board input and to some extent the public although your point is well taken that it is a cumbersome process and not something that is easily turned dramatically.

Stephen Nielsen, Deputy Superintendent.

To that point and to the need we have added work sessions in your board schedule for budget work in October, January, February, and March.

And then beyond that probably some more but those are in addition to what we have seen in the past, in the recent past.

One last question.

Dr. Harris.

We can get rid of the levy financing off of the board's budget.

The board's budget is inflated because of the levy costs.

No.

Can we do another line item and move it out?

Because this board is broke but it doesn't appear that way.

So there are requirements on state activities so how we report things that may be superintendent activities, school board activity that is and we can do this at another timeline but it is required to be put there.

We also have organizational structure which is school board.

So we have school board state activity and we have school board organizational activity.

They are not necessarily have to be the same thing.

We can move it into some other place but it would still reflect on all reporting to the state as the activity of the school board.

Thank you.

Any more comments?

And I apologize there was one other thing it should have shown the edits on this and I think we have the wrong version of the PowerPoint but one other change occurred between audit and finance and that related to the capital fund.

The capital fund was showing an ending fund balance of zero.

and a beginning fund balance that was a reduced amount and after looking at the budget book the comment came up what happened to community schools reserve are we planning on spinning that?

So that was not the intention of the presentations so that amount was changed and again it does not affect the expenditures but it reflected that we have a larger beginning fund balance and we will have an ending fund balance so if there are questions as to why did you have an ending fund balance of zero in the capital fund we do not and we are not planning on that and I apologize.

Director Blanford.

I'm just wondering it sounds like you are getting lots of community feedback on the budget so far.

And I'm wondering if you can speak to who's looking at it with the level of detail that it sounds like they are.

If you can share that.

Well I mean our biggest feedback on edits would be the City of Seattle.

The capital fund was something I caught after taking the time to look at the capital fund in more detail.

The levy was something that we were just, we finally got around to verifying with OSPI that our estimate was wrong.

But the feedback we've been getting so far has been people very much thankful of the transparency in our new documentation and we recognize there's going to be a lot of questions that sometimes come with transparency.

But the city of Seattle was the most targeted feedback we've received recently.

The reason I ask that question is my hope was that you were going to tell us that in addition to the city and other stakeholders who have a vested interest in knowing how we spend our dollars that it would be a huge groundswell of parents who are also looking at given the access issues that have been resolved that there would be a lot more parents that are paying attention to how individual dollars are being spent so that they can help us to make a more compelling case particularly down in the legislature.

I think the more people we have that know this budget inside and out I think they can make a much more compelling case when we have to make the arguments around McCleary and lack of funding.

And we are seeing it start to build but again we have changed the budget book two years in a row to keep evolving it to get to the level it is at now.

So people don't know that it is as powerful of a tool as we believe we have built so please help us get the message out there.

I know we are trying to do it with our communications department and once people realize that it has the level of detail it does I think we will get even more people interested in I'm anxious to see when we get it published every year.

Director Peters.

On the subject of the budget book I just wanted to thank you for the work that went into it, the whole department.

You created something that is comprehensive and clear and even compelling in the way you've laid it out and it seems like with each iteration you add more information and I think it's going to help the community understand exactly what we're what our challenges are each year financially and so I encourage people to go take a look at this if they are interested in getting more involved in understanding the numbers.

There is also a whole section about schools and how each school breaks down its budget which is very interesting, very informative.

So thank you for your work on the budget book.

Director Burke.

I'll second the gratitude for some good reading.

Along the topic of how we reach our community and how we get the most bang from our thoughtful and deliberate families out there, what sort of an electronic record Do we envision now or in the future being able to provide, because it's one thing to be able to look through the book, it's another thing to be able to pull up a spreadsheet and run your own little analyses and not have to enter numbers, understanding that that's a heavier lift.

Is there a vision for that?

My staff are chomping at the bit but there are some challenges with going to full transparency and online and we have some challenges coming to us from the legislature on possibly changing the structure of our accounting information going forward.

But yes we have seen other not necessarily districts but counties and other places in the United States who have online tools to allow people to drill down.

So we are working on trying to get ourselves into a position so that when the district is ready to go there the financial information will be at a high level of accuracy and be very easy to, meaningful.

Just because you can drill down on a number doesn't mean you understand what that number means.

So we are trying to improve the education of people as well.

And the next thing would be to translate some of it.

Any more questions or comments?

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Our next introduction item is amending board policy number 6805, keys.

Can we hear from the ENF?

Yes, this motion was brought to the Audit and Finance Committee meeting on June 9 and we move this item forward to the full board with a recommendation for approval.

Thank you.

Hello again.

Clover Codd assistant superintendent of human resources.

So I'm here tonight to introduce the proposed revisions to our current policy 6805 which governs accountability and oversight for keys.

The key building policy was excuse me the key policy was developed to ensure controlled access to district buildings.

The purpose as currently stated is to ensure maximum protection of district property and facilities to minimize possible theft, vandalism and loss of materials and equipment.

Missing from this policy though we felt is to add that we will also be looking out and ensuring the safe, looking out for our students and our staff and ensuring that they are safe as well.

So we did have an incident occur earlier this year which left one of our custodians feeling unsafe at work during the evenings.

In response to this incident along with others we have made four substantive proposed changes to this policy.

So while the principal does remain the manager of the building and is responsible for the overall safety and security of the building the four changes are as follows.

We have added that the director of facility and operations have oversight of the key control system.

That's number one.

Number two, we have added language that includes providing safety of staff and students not just property.

Number three, we have also added a protocol that would ask any staff coming in during off hours to call the custodian on duty before coming in so that the custodian knows that somebody is coming into the building.

We believe that's just some common courtesy.

If there is no custodian on duty, say it's a weekend, you would still call and leave a message.

It doesn't mean that the custodian has to answer.

There is no permission given.

It's just a common courtesy to call in advance.

And then fourth, we added greater accountability for the master log and the individual key record form.

All keys must be signed in and out.

Keys should be collected at the end of the school year and the principal will go over this log with the custodian.

Questions.

Director Blanford.

We had significant conversation about this at the audit and finance committee meeting last week.

And in many ways as you've described it, it helps to answer some of the questions that I had.

One that I'm still a little bit concerned about is just the access question and knowing a little bit about how schools operate and how access is granted or not granted.

people come in it's kind of, it just happens as it happens.

I'm wondering about the third change which would be to require custodial notification in advance and I'm wondering if that's going to end up being a barrier.

Thinking about the people who would routinely have access to our buildings or need access to our buildings.

I'm wondering what happens if the custodian is, they switch.

Sometimes you have one custodian but that custodian is not going to be the one that is in the building, someone else comes in.

How does the notification work with that?

I'm going to ask Bruce Gower to come up and help me answer this question.

So we're really not trying to limit access it's more of a notification so the custodian is aware of who's in the building so you know when they're done with their work and they clean an area lock it down if they know that the teacher is still there before they leave they can go back and double check.

And with master keys you don't necessarily need a master key to get into the building on the weekend.

It's the most convenient way to do it but not necessarily always the best.

Most teachers have a submaster that would get them in at least one door in the building.

Director Burke.

Can you help me understand where this policy will address or how it will address control of closets or rooms where we've got assessments or sensitive material like that where we want to control access?

Well the key policy would dictate that those would be a little bit more secure areas that might require a master.

Again we are really trying to limit the number of master keys that are out there.

So, trying to keep those particular rooms on something of a master key level, fairly secure.

I guess I'm wondering if there's, since it has been an issue of concern, if there's a way to incorporate explicit language in here in the policy.

I know it's a little late for that.

something that addresses the storage of sensitive academic material or controlled access material.

Yeah we could add that.

And also to speak to your point about substitute custodians and different custodians the cell phone number for the building remains the same so that will go to whoever is working in that particular building.

Oh so I didn't understand that part.

So if someone is accessing the building they are calling the number of the school.

Yeah there is a facilities custodial phone number for that particular school that is published and the custodian on duty carries that phone at all times.

Okay that's great.

Dr. Peters.

Does this policy offer a limit to the number of copies of a master key that can be made?

No it just requires approval.

So if there's a process that we currently have where it has to be approved by me and I look for a justification for that key.

And if there's a legitimate reason then we can issue a master key but again we try to make sure it's well justified.

Okay I wonder if there's any way to put some parameters around that because I think that was one of the issues with Beacon Hill was that an awful lot of people had keys.

I think I heard there was as many as nine keys and so I'm wondering how we could do that.

Could we put some sort of parameters so that we don't have so many keys we lose track of them.

Well and I think one of the parameters that we tried to add to this was to make sure that all keys are returned at the end of the school year and even if they're allowed to have them over the summer that they're checked in and reissued for that period where we hadn't been doing that consistently.

So once you get a master key you have a master key until you basically leave the district.

So now we've added to the policy that it's required at the end of the school year, the keys are checked out, checked in.

And then to Director Burke's question, I believe another, we recently revised another policy to address the whole issue of assessment security.

So I think another policy has established that assessments should be contained and locked file cabinets.

There is something else, we did address that somewhere else but not so much in this policy.

But if we want to do an overlap and have extra precautions in this one as well I think that could be prudent.

And then my next question and my only last question is does this policy address at all the usage of keys by any private providers of childcare or preschool or any of the city preschool providers?

Does it apply to them?

It does.

Basically the policy states that they can't be issued a district key if they are not a district person.

A master key.

Won't that be a change though because currently don't they have their own keys?

Aren't there custodians for these providers who have their own keys?

They have their own access to their own area but that doesn't always grant them access into the school building.

What if the room is inside the school building?

then they don't need a master key.

They can be issued a key for that door for that part of the school.

But we wouldn't necessarily grant them, we would probably never grant them a master key.

Okay.

But they would still have access to the building?

They would.

And this policy does not govern that?

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any more questions or comments?

Thank you.

Our next item is placing conditional certification application on board personnel report.

Can we hear from A&F?

This motion was discussed at the June 9, 2016 Audit and Finance Committee meeting.

The committee moved this item forward to the full board with a recommendation for approval.

Okay so I want to give a little bit of context with this one for you and for the public.

So during the 2016 legislative session OSPI did send a notice to districts aimed at informing everyone the statewide teacher shortage we are facing and put some possible solutions out there.

In that notice State Superintendent Randy Dorn stated that school districts in Washington are having major difficulties hiring mathematics, science, special education and other teachers especially in rural and high poverty areas.

All school districts report also that we have a significant shortage in substitute teachers.

Additionally with the implementation of the full kindergarten K-3 class size reduction we are expecting to hire approximately 10,000 new kindergarten through third grade teachers over the next three to four years across the state.

And yet the in-state production of new teachers is only 1,500 that have that early childhood K-3 certification.

So several strategies are recommended in that notice and we did attach that to the board action report.

We have been working closely with our substitute leaders of the substitute union with Peter Henry which you heard from earlier around shortage of substitute teachers.

This bar is not speaking about substitute teachers this is actually talking about classroom teachers so I just wanted to clarify.

So a few years ago this topic was highly contentious because we had a contract with the Teach for America or TFA and we are using TFA conditionally certified teachers as one strategy.

For clarification we do not have a contract with TFA and we do not plan on utilizing that organization as a strategy to feel hard to staff or any of our other positions.

However we do have a need to utilize the conditional certification for some of our hardest to fill positions.

Before these occur our current practice is that if a teacher or a conditionally certified teacher to be wanted to become a conditionally certified teacher they have to apply to OSPI.

Before they can apply to OSPI they have to have board approval from our school district, from you all.

Our current practice is to bring these individual submissions to the board in its own individual board action report.

So our request is that rather than having individual board action reports for each individual submission.

The Department of Human Resources is requesting permission from the board to establish a process by where application authorizations are submitted to the board for approval through the human resources personnel report and we have attached a sample personnel report for you to look at.

If the conditional certificate is approved these employees will be listed on a future personnel report as certificated hired staff.

OSPI does allow for this type of flexibility in hiring because it understands that there are real shortages that exist for certain teachers in certain schools.

We may want to secure the services of unusually talented individuals who do not currently possess a teaching certificate.

In order for a conditionally, in order excuse me for a conditional certificate to be issued The applicant must be considered highly qualified and experienced and must be taught and have some unusual distinction or exceptional talent through public records of accomplishment and or awards.

So an example of that would perhaps be a native Japanese speaker or having a hard time finding a teacher in one of our international or bilingual programs.

There is no teacher that has a certificate there to fill that position.

Nobody has applied.

There is nobody.

So we would then try to recruit an individual who has an unusual talent, go through this process so that they could be teaching in our classroom.

In order, once we do receive these teachers and they are in our school district we must assign them a mentor, a plan of assistant and they must have 60 clock hours within the first six working days of employment.

These are also short-term two-year certifications.

I will open it up for questions.

Director Peters.

I just have a comment I just want to draw people's attention to the sample personnel report that does highlight that these would be conditional certificates pending and so it's very clearly designated you know delineated in the personnel report so if there were any questions or people wanted to know exactly how many or who we're talking about it will be clearly you know depicted in this document.

That's correct.

Director Burke.

You had indicated that HR would develop a process by which candidates were evaluated for consideration for conditional certificates.

Is that?

Not quite.

So in order to receive a conditional certification you have to apply to OSPI.

Before you can apply our school board has to approve those applications.

So right now we bring those to you individually in an individual board action report which as you know goes through committee intro action can take sometimes six to eight weeks.

What we are proposing the new process would be that those come to you not in individual bars but on the personnel report that Director Peters just pointed out to us.

And you would be approving that those individuals could then apply to SPI once they receive their conditional certification and we hire them they would be on a future personnel report as a hired certificated staff member.

Okay.

I guess what I'm trying to understand is, is there a criteria by which they go from a candidate to being a conditional applicant for us?

Is there a screening process that you would apply or would they just go on the list?

What determines the need?

What determines the qualification?

what determines how unique they are and uniquely qualified is what you are asking for.

So okay so what I think so we would need to determine a screening process to make sure that we have some level of quality control for who does come into our district and who would be applying for conditional certification.

We don't have that process in place actually I shouldn't speak I don't know if we have that process in place right now.

If we don't have one We will make sure to have one.

If we do have one, I'll make sure that we share that.

Okay, thank you.

I guess the, excuse me, the fundamental point that I'm trying to make is that if somebody previously came under a conditional certificate there would be an opportunity to dialogue around what are the qualifications, what's the screening that's been done, and we just want to make sure that there's due diligence that that follows a process, for example, that that uses the equity decision-making tool, so on and so forth.

I hear you, thank you.

I will make sure to address that before action.

Director Blanford.

I appreciate how this can help to solve several of the problems that we've encountered recently around shortages of teachers but I have a little bit of heartburn and I'll share with you which I'm sure you probably know knowing that your doctorates surround education.

Education theory would suggest that that teachers coming into our classrooms need to be skilled both knowledgeable both in subject matter knowledge which I think this addresses really well but also in pedagogy.

and I don't hear as much about how we are going to, if a highly qualified person comes in that doesn't have a strong pedagogical background, how we would shore that up in short order.

I heard you say something about clock hours within the first

So there are three things that I think are trying to address that.

So one is that we would assign them a mentor like a master teacher.

We would put a plan of assistance in place and we would ensure that they have 60 clock hours within their first 60 days of employment.

So that doesn't It takes years to become a fully skilled teacher.

Absolutely.

To learn the pedagogical skill to become a teacher.

You are not going to learn in 60 clock hours and I would argue you don't learn in your program at the university level either.

You learn how to teach when you become a teacher.

So I don't know how else to address that.

I understand the heartburn.

We want really effective highly skilled teachers in every single classroom.

We do have a reality where we have trouble finding anybody to be in certain classrooms.

We can't fill them with subs, we can't fill them with teachers.

So we are trying to employ every strategy we can to ensure that every single day students have a teacher in front of them.

That means it could be a substitute teacher, a certified teacher, additionally certified teacher or even a substitute on an emergency certificate.

We are trying to do everything we can.

So and I appreciate that response and I agree with it wholeheartedly.

Part of my concern is around that 60 clock hours within the Did you say the first how many?

60 working days.

And so someone is going to walk in and become a new teacher and be required to get 60 clock hours in 60 days?

That seems, does that seem rather than that seems, does that seem to be a bit burdensome to that potential new teacher?

Perhaps I don't want to misspeak because I haven't thought that through all the way and I want to be able to give you a thoughtful response to that.

I think it's in our best interest to make sure that the teachers that we are bringing in that do get the approval of the conditional cert that we provide the support for them to be able to become a really skilled teacher for the students.

I would have to explore more about the 60 clock hours within 60 days how does that happen, how is it, other districts are employing this strategy so I am sure that there are strategies that they are using to support the teachers in getting those 60 clock hours.

I have to explore more, I'm sorry Director Blanford.

That's okay.

The last thing that I'll say on this is I would hope that you will at some point in the future be able to provide us with a map that shows us where these teachers are being placed.

And the reason that I ask that is there was a study that I read just this week that said that if we were to place our if we were to place all of our low-income and students of color with our top 25% of teachers we would eliminate our gaps.

And the two things in my mind come together because as much as I believe these teachers are highly skilled we want them we don't necessarily want to put them with our most challenging students to start off with.

So, it would be good to be able to see where they are being deployed inside of the district.

Over time.

Over time so that we can ensure that one, they are improving their quality but two, they are not training on our most needy students because in many cases that is a recipe for our gaps increasing not decreasing.

Right and I think it's important to know that this is not our strategy.

This is one of many we are trying to recruit as you heard nurses 100% filled at this point in the year.

Last year we did not have that.

We are doing everything we can to find really highly qualified effective teachers and other staff to be in our building.

So this is just one strategy of a multi-pronged strategy and approach.

Director Geary.

So as I understand it the process before was that each of these would have been brought to us as individuals.

And I would assume in that process then there would be some detail about them that we are not going to be seeing.

It seems like we would go from a fully fleshed out proposal down to lines in a report that is filled with line after line after line of data.

It seems to me like there's something in between there that we should have.

We should have a working understanding of who these people are.

That's the way it was before for some reason.

And we're throwing that all out for expediency.

and I'm just I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with going from those two ends.

Though I understand the timing of it and I understand the burdensomeness of the bar procedure.

It's just the disappearance of the information that likely went into the bar that we will no longer have ready access to as part of just something that we would read through and we would all have a chance to have eyes on.

It would take one of us to stop and ask a question when so often that is going on the consent agenda anyway.

Let me think about how we might be able to employ something that would be, we still go through the personnel report but maybe there is some sheet or information I need to think through it.

Again, I want to be more thoughtful in my responses than just standing up here and giving you an answer.

I appreciate that a lot.

It just seems to go from so much to so little that I feel like there is a responsibility that we are falling down on in allowing this to just happen.

Thank you.

And I think something that would help address this is something that Director Burke had asked about and that is what measures are you using, what rubric are you using to decide who qualifies for a conditional certification.

And so once you determine whether or not that tool exists or whether you create one I think that will help us know.

That they've been through a screening process, they've been vetted, that there's been a rubric applied.

Right.

And then as far as us knowing more detail, I wonder if there is a place for us to just have some kind of, I was going to say review but not quite, but just a little bit more information so it's not just a name.

If we feel that this is something that requires a little bit more care because we are doing something beyond what we normally do, we are trying something a little bit different.

We want to make sure that we have fully qualified people and that they are placed throughout the district equitably.

Because I know one of the concerns in the past, and that was with Teacher America, was the concern that those particular teachers only had five weeks training and that they were being put in certain schools.

I think the model, the national model for Teacher America was to put these teachers in the schools.

low-income schools or schools where kids of color were struggling and or they were put in front of special ed classes and you know families justifiably said that's not fair to put the least trained least qualified teachers in front of our kids.

And so I think that's why we ended up with so much more scrutiny when we had Teach for America here.

So I agree with what Director Geary says we have to have something in between a little bit more information than just a list.

Any more questions comments?

Okay thank you.

Our next item.

2016-2017 city of Seattle families and education levy community-based organization contract approval.

C&I.

This motion was discussed at the May 12 C&I meeting and was moved forward to the full board with a recommendation for approval.

Thank you.

Good evening Board, Michael Stone Director of Grants and Fiscal Compliance.

I'm bringing forward to you five contracts of our top CBOs that will be doing the work with the family and education levy out at the 41 schools.

That would be the City of Seattle Parks and Rec, University Tutors for Seattle Schools, Community and Schools and the YMCA of Greater Seattle as well as City Year.

I'm bringing this forward now so that we know that we have the contracts in place for the start of school and services can begin on the first day of school.

Are there any questions?

Comments?

Okay.

Thank you.

Our next item motion to accept the Head Start grant serving 400 preschool children and families in the amount of $4,195,939.

This motion was brought to the June 9 audit and finance committee meeting where the committee moved the item forward to the full board with the recommendation for approval.

Good evening, Gene Guzzi program manager Head Start.

This is the introduction of the annual Head Start grant.

With Head Start policy council approval which happened last week and board approval we will be able to apply for $4.2 million of federal funds to provide Head Start services in the district next year.

Any questions?

Comments?

Director Peters.

By way of context, so this is the annual?

Yes, annual grant.

And so what is different this year is that, and we discussed this in a different point, was that this year we will be serving 30 fewer children with basically the same amount of funds.

That is correct, the same amount of funds.

Thank you.

Director Geary.

And I just want to add that Mr. Guzzi and I have sat down several times to go over the changes and talk about the paperwork and bring in the Head Start committee members and it's been a pleasure to work with them and he's been very thorough and careful in explaining each step of the way to me, the new Head Start representative.

Thank you.

Any more questions?

Comments?

Okay.

Moving right along.

Thank you.

Substance abuse prevention services grant from King County mental health.

A&F.

Mine says this went to C&I.

C&I chair do you recall this one?

It was A&F last week.

Interesting well that's not what my notes say so I'm going to have to go to a different document.

Okay Leslie you want to go ahead and read that out?

Oh actually you just told me.

It came to Audit and Finance on June 9 and we brought it forward for approval, recommendation for approval.

Good evening again Directors.

Michael Stone Director of Grants Fiscal Compliance.

We are bringing forward to you an increase, this is actually, we have had the funding in the district.

The county is giving us another $110,000 to expand the service which now takes us over the $250,000 threshold.

So we will be at $256,000 for services at four schools in the district to provide drug prevention services.

Any questions?

Director Blanford.

I'll just note that in audit and finance we had a little bit of conversation about hoping that we could get a report, get some information on the need for drug and alcohol counseling in our schools particularly with the legalization of marijuana.

The principals I've talked to say that it has become a pretty acute or chronic, sometimes I don't know what the difference between the two is, maybe it's both but it is a pretty significant issue in many of our schools.

I don't think that today is probably the appropriate time but at some point my hope is that either through the executive committee or however we get scheduled there would be the opportunity for a presentation on that issue.

And we can with Mrs. Davidson bring that up to the board at that time.

Can I ask what made you decide on the four schools?

How was the four schools chosen?

The four schools are chosen by the Department of Behavioral Health and Recovery by the state of Washington.

It's federal funds that are given to the state, state to the county, county to us.

And so the state selects them based on marijuana use rates as well as graduation rates, free and reduced lunch rates, etc.

Thank you.

Any more questions?

Thank you.

Our next one is RFQ 01542 birth to three intervention administration services, experimental education unit, EEU, Wonderland Development Center, Northwest Center, Boyer Children's Clinic, A&F and C&I.

Okay so this one came to audit finance first where it was approved to be included for introduction today but then it was taken to curriculum and instruction policy where it was actually discussed I think in greater detail.

Thank you.

Jesse Wyatt actually start.

I'd like to say that we are now at introduction item number 8, birth to three administration services.

I would note that items 8 through 15 are all being introduced by Wyatt Jesse.

He will introduce all eight items together and then we will move to director questions.

First may I have the committee chair's recommendation.

It's convenient that all of these items were discussed in C&I on Monday June 13 and all of them were moved forward to the board with a recommendation for approval.

Thank you.

Good morning Board President Patu.

I think I said good morning because I'm feeling like it.

And I've had a number of people wave at me and go you didn't cut it short right.

Yes I am.

Yes we did go to A&F last week as well as C&I this week just in regard to board policy number 6220 around the procurement contracts including agreements for any of those agreements or contracts at the $250,000 or greater threshold.

And these particular eight contracts that we are moving forward do fall under four particular areas.

really around our private placements those are therapeutic services.

We also have proportional share where we have service plans for students who attend private school.

We have some agency or organization flow dollars Contract with Edmonds School District for DHH services as well as Children's Hospital due to their unique placement here in the boundaries of Seattle and then also our birth to three intervention and that is why we have those four particular organizations which we have consistently contracted with for the last couple of years.

These overall contracts are generally with the same providers.

We do have a number of changes that happen within proportional share.

So that's why I'm here this evening to move forward these services that we need for our students in Seattle Public Schools who have special needs.

Anybody has any questions at all from 8 to 15?

Now Director Geary.

It was raised by a member of the audience that we should take a look at the Edmonds contract and so if you could give us a brief explanation as to why we would be contracting with Edmonds for deaf and hard of hearing services.

And I am assuming we are doing that because by law we have to contract out when we cannot provide services within the district so I will assume lawfully we have made that determination that we can't do it.

So a brief explanation as to why could be helpful.

Yes Director Geary that would be about the IEP team and they are really thinking about placement, what's the best placement.

Again it's an individual education plan it's not just we are going to label the broader brush for students just because they have DHH services or even DHH is their primary placement.

Those placement needs may be greater than what we can provide in some instances.

So, and in other cases students also benefit when they have been somewhere for a sustained period of time and not always necessarily transitioning them on a frequent basis.

That is the particular case so we do work within our IEP team structure with also a district administrator there to think about when is it appropriate, where is it appropriate to bring a student back from the six that are currently projected to be contracted with Edmond school district back to Seattle Public Schools.

Any more questions?

Thank you for doing all 15 of them.

Thank you.

Okay approval of Washington schools risk management pool coverage agreement for fiscal year 2016-2017.

A&F?

Yes this came to the audit and finance committee on June 9 where we moved this item forward to the full board for recommendation for approval.

Thank you.

Good evening Directors, Richard Stout, Risk Manager.

We have been members of the Washington School Risk Management Pool since 2002 and annually we pay a premium contribution to the pool under the leadership of Ken Gotch.

It was identified that we had not been properly getting approval for that expenditure.

It really is a routine item.

We must have coverage for our liability on our property.

there are very few opportunities for school districts in Washington to obtain that coverage.

The Washington schools risk management board has been a great partner for us for many years and we are asking for your approval to spend the money to make sure that we remain covered.

Thank you.

Any questions or comments?

Thank you.

Next one is awarding refuse disposal and mixed waste recycling collection services.

Bit number B03660.

Ops.

This was heard on March or May 19 and moved forward for consideration.

Thank you.

So we are here tonight, Bruce Skowra, Director of Facilities.

We are here tonight to request approval of a new three-year contract with Recology Cleanscapes for refuse disposal and mixed waste recycling collection.

The value of the contract is $1,660,458.30 or $550,486.10 per year for three years.

Recology cleanscapes is our current vendor and they were the low bidder when we bidded out.

So the new contract does offer us a savings.

Any questions?

Director Harris.

Does Recology have a collective bargaining agreement with its employees and B what are the employee benefits?

Because these pass-through contracts I appreciate that we have to take the lowest bidder but equity and taking care of the people that take care of us.

Sure.

Point of information.

Yeah, so I'm not sure about all of their staff, but their drivers are Teamsters.

Any more questions?

Thank you.

Our next one PTA 4 award contract P1461 for architecture engineering AE services to TCF architecture for the Daniel Webster modernization project.

Ops.

I was thinking about my joke just a second ago.

This was heard by the Ops Committee on the 19th and recommended for consideration.

Thank you.

Yes good evening Richard Best director of capital projects and planning for Seattle Public Schools.

This is a contract that we are bringing forth to renovate to prepare the design documents to renovate Webster Elementary or Webster school.

It is a contract with TCF architecture.

We went through a selection process that is described in board procedure 6220. And eight firms submitted requests for qualifications, submitted their requests for qualifications for consideration for this design work.

We interviewed three.

TCF was selected.

We are in the process of negotiating the price.

We are anticipating a range between 2.6 million and 3.1 million for their services.

Total project budget for this project is $31,737,094.

And this project would be complete in the summer of 2020. Design services would not begin until the fall of 2016. So roughly two years for design, two years for construction.

I will note that we can begin design services, we cannot begin construction without a programmatic EIS approved.

and we are, this is a BTA IV funded project and we are asking just for your approval on the design services.

Any questions?

Director Harris.

Mr. Best what do we say to the folks in the Loyal Heights community and other folks that come to us and they say y'all haven't even figured out what you want to do with Webster yet.

Well current plans are to utilize it as an elementary school and that's the direction that we are proceeding at this moment in time.

I do recognize there are some other discussions occurring as to potential other uses for Webster.

Can you elaborate on discussions, potential other uses?

You've got my curiosity now.

Thank you.

Other educational uses for Webster elementary school potentially as a middle school alternative school.

So there are other that the office of teaching and learning is considering for this building.

Other uses.

Dr. Peters.

So this and the following two items were both recommended for consideration.

Can you address why it was for consideration?

Was there some information missing?

We are still negotiating the contract language with them and we are still negotiating the amount with Director Peters and so that is why it is coming forward for consideration in lieu of the operation committee approval.

Just as a point of clarity, so this building currently houses the Nordic Heritage Museum?

Correct, and it has housed the Nordic Heritage Museum for almost 30 years.

And the Nordic Heritage Museum has procured its own new building so we are not evicting the museum, they are moving out of their own volition, is that correct?

That is correct, they are moving out.

Okay, thank you.

Any more questions, comments?

Thank you.

Our next one is PTA 4 award contract K1255 for architectural and engineering services to Stamper Architects for roof replacement at Ballard Garfield West Seattle High School project.

Ops.

Ops committee heard this on May 19 moved forward for consideration.

So this is to replace the roof in its entirety at Ballard High School.

It is to replace a portion of the roof at Garfield High School.

It is the portion that was not replaced during the BEX II renovation of that high school.

And then it is to make repairs to the historic clay tile roof at West Seattle High School.

We had seven firms.

submit their statements of qualifications to implement this work in accordance with board procedure 6220. We interviewed two of those firms and SM Stemper Architects was selected as the most qualified firm.

We are bringing this to you The contract amount has been negotiated, it wasn't negotiated at the time it went to operations committee.

We do have an amount negotiated at this time and so bringing it to you for your approval at the next school board meeting as we want to begin the work, the design work this summer when the building is not occupied.

Or when these buildings I should say are not occupied.

Any questions or comments?

This question applies to this item and by association the previous one as well.

Is there a reason why we don't list, you mentioned the number of applicants, on the board action report why we do not list the names of those individual applicants?

The names of all the firms that have submitted.

Again this has just been past practice.

Director Burke we can do that if you would like us to do that.

I think that would be a good informative point.

Thank you.

Any more questions?

Comments?

Before we end I would actually like to do a shout out.

I have four grandchildren who are graduating this year.

I want to make sure I do a shout out.

Jamin Patu who is actually graduating from Saltwater from eighth grade.

Miracle Patu Jackson graduating from eighth grade.

Charisma Patu who is graduating from Rainier Beach.

Saniya Simpson Patu graduating from Rainier Beach.

And then my daughter Annie who is graduating from Sydney University with her master's degree to be a principal.

Congratulations all five of you.

Thank you.

And meeting is now adjourned.

Nice wrap-up.