Seattle School Board Meeting January 3, 2018 Part 3

this meeting please by agreement with the chair of ops director Mack, Deputy Nielsen you're going to kick her off is that correct?

Thank you.

Good evening to members of the audience and to those watching on television.

At the risk of the obvious much has been taken place over the last several months around boundaries and the adjustments and on behalf of the superintendent I want to thank the members of the boundary task force, the members of this audience and the people that you represent who have thoughtfully provided input and ideas about what could be done to improve some of the ideas that have been presented.

I want to thank the board for your involvement and the efforts taking place to date and in the last several months about bringing to this point.

Again at the risk of the obvious boundary adjustments are difficult.

If you talk to board members in any school district in any part of the United States they will tell you that closing schools is the worst and boundary changes are the second worst thing that they have to do.

And they disrupt families and they're difficult and people are passionate about them and it's a real challenge.

So we just want to thank everyone for this knowing that it's a process that doesn't always have the best outcome for every individual.

We have developed a timeline and bring us to this point so I'd like either Flip or Ashley please to go through the timeline and I believe we could put that up on the screen.

And then I'll talk a little bit about the purpose of this next hour and Director Mack will lead the discussion.

Herndon associate superintendent of operations and facilities.

So what you can see there is a timeline that talks about the actions that have happened over roughly the last four weeks and the actions coming to the board and impacts on our system over the next four to eight weeks.

And we are in a bit of a compressed situation and this is not by design.

Clearly we're trying to meet the needs of everybody and and have the board in a position where they can make an informed decision but also let families understand what the impact of these boundary changes are going to be.

So you can see on there the high school test high school boundary task force has been meeting and wrestling with this since roughly last April.

So this thing going on for about eight months and you also have the meetings that we've done.

The board work sessions we've had with the board the board meeting that we had in December and we're to this date which is 1 3 which is a discussion about the boundaries.

We have a high school boundary task force meeting on Friday.

We have a board work session next Wednesday all in the hope of introducing a high school boundary scenario and bar to the board on January 17th.

with hopefully a decision of January 31 because you can see our open enrollment process begins February 5 that's that first week of February.

So if we are trying to stick to the timeline that the board had wanted us as staff to be able to provide you and give families that opportunity to know what the high school changes were going to be before open enrollment of 2018 knowing that these implementation of these boundaries is going to happen in September of 2019 when Lincoln High School opens.

Thank you Dr. Herndon.

So the purpose of this next hour is to have board discussion so that staff receives a cohesive set of understandings so that we can create by the work session on the 10th.

And perhaps as recent as Friday for the task force depending upon what is decided in this next hour not to decide on the final product but instead to talk about how do we narrow options and hopefully get to two or perhaps three options that can be mapped and presented then at that work session.

And with the board's permission president and other members I will work on behalf of staff to make sure that we understand and sometimes may need to ask clarifying questions.

We have other staff here that can do the same.

We want to make sure that we are hearing a cohesive message and we're able to respond in a professional and in a quick manner because of the timeline and because this is such an important topic for so many people.

Director Mack.

Thank you both of you for kicking that off.

I just want to first.

say that I really appreciate all of the input that's been coming and that this is boundaries and this kind of process is kind of an iterative process which can be challenging as we move through it.

And now that we're in this compressed timeline and we have to come up with a solution hopefully that meets the needs of the greatest number of students.

It may feel a little fast but I have faith that we can get there with the conversations we've been having.

And again I want to reiterate my gratitude for the folks that have been talking about the compromise and that are there solutions in which we can.

meet the needs of the greatest students and I absolutely believe that we can and that there are there are scenarios that we can do that with and that we'll work together to create those and have them fully presented and discussed and at the next work session.

And so I really appreciate how hard staff is working to to pull this all together because it is incredibly complex and challenging.

I want to first have Rick talk about the process and the timeline for the resolution that is coming out of what was Amendment 2 from the board meeting in December and and how that dovetails with this process.

Thank you Director Mack.

So I'll I'll try to build on that a little bit.

What we're trying to do is we're trying to create I think collectively a pathway to a small number of viable scenarios.

And so when we talk about a viable enrollment scenario that can include The things that are really clear like boundaries.

It can also include things like pathways for highly capable dual language.

It could include a variety of other things like grandfathering pretty much everything that goes into our student assignment plan that determines where a particular student goes based on their address their services.

Any sort of identification they might have.

And then there's another layer that sits on top of that in our student assignment plan which is the choice layer which says OK this plan isn't working for me but I would like to be able to choose something.

And in a in a system that is completely constrained and overfilled there is zero choice when there's zero choice.

There's a lot more dissatisfaction because people who.

for some reason don't see the fit between their family and the assignment plan don't have an outlet.

So it's a really interesting dynamic to try to get all of those pieces to work together and still leave a little bit of room in our schools so that our families have a choice option.

And that's what makes this so hard.

Those who have been following the process.

There's been a lot of work on boundary maps and then more recently work on highly capable pathways because that's a large number of students and depending on whether they go to a single site multiple sites or distributed over the city it has an impact on where the boundaries are drawn.

So those two things sort of have to be done together.

But there's it's also sort of we sort of have to pick one before we can move on the other one because there's just a lot of permutations.

So at our last meeting there was a conversation among the board and an amendment came forward around a essentially sun setting or setting a timeline for by which the highly capable students in high school would be localized or essentially they would be assigned to their neighborhood high school for their highly capable capable services as compared to our current model which is that they're guaranteed at Garfield and they have optional assignment at Ingram with a cap.

And so when that came before the board there was a little bit of conversation around it.

Well actually a lot of conversation but we didn't have an opportunity to really explore Unintended consequences.

Talk about different scenarios.

Understand budget impact.

And so ultimately that did not move forward in the December meeting.

But we don't want that to not happen.

We want to understand how to process it.

And so there's a board resolution that's been prepared co-authored by or being co-sponsored by directors Geary and DeWolf and that is being introduced at the curriculum instruction policy committee meeting next week I believe on the 9th.

So the language around that amendment to.

that was driving a subsequent boundaries decision of do we have pathways or do we have a decentralized or assigned attendance area model is being evaluated in curriculum instruction committee.

And will be moved forward on exactly the same timeline that you see on these slides introduced to the board on the 17th and presumably voted on on the 31st.

So we will have confirmation of that.

But my request in the conversation here is that recognizing that we've we've started that dialogue.

But we're focusing it in the curriculum instruction policy committee meeting.

And so I think the guidance here is well how do we.

If we have a a localized or decentralized HC model what does the boundary scenario look like?

If we have a pathways HC model.

What do the boundaries look like?

And so I think that was sort of the frame that we were trying to have the conversation in recognizing that we will be making a decision between those at the same time.

But it's hard to make a decision without being able to see both scenarios.

So I just wanted to put that out as perspective.

Hopefully that wasn't too obtuse.

Questions on that.

OK.

I will.

Back to Director Mack.

Thank you.

The other thing that I we don't have a slide of it unfortunately but I want to bring forth to kind of root us in existing board policies and priorities and why this is so challenging.

But the student assignment plan has guidance on as they say factors that have to contribute to the determination of where attendance boundaries are located and these factors aren't weighted since multiple factors have to be balanced.

Because it's challenging when you have think competing factors.

How do we actually make those decisions.

And I just want to read them off so that folks can hear what we're all we're trying to balance in in our goals of.

Providing every student with a great opportunity for high school education opening up Lincoln strong balancing our capacity challenges as was noted earlier we've got Garfield and Roosevelt and Ballard severely overloaded.

And we need to we need to manage all of these challenges together.

And in in terms of fact balancing the factors.

For boundary draws the bullet points are proximity of students to schools safe walk zones efficiency of school bus routing for elementary and middle school boundaries metro transportation routes for high school boundaries because students in high school do not get yellow bus service in general.

Demographics including anticipated changes in enrollment.

We have to be able look into the future and demographics matter.

Opportunities for creating diversity within boundaries.

Physical barriers.

Balanced targeted enrollment for each middle school and its feeder elementary middle school.

Sorry that's middle school doesn't matter.

Availability of open choice seats at all attendance area high schools for students from other attendance areas to enroll through school choice.

And another thing that was written in that plan which is what we are the base document which is what all of these boundaries for the past since 2009 have been have been drawn from.

And this is up for discussion and something that could be changed but the base policy guidance was that each attendance area boundary is an intact geographic zone.

There are no non-contiguous geographic areas comprised of individual attendance area boundaries.

It's a continuous boundary.

And each attendance area boundary line abuts the boundary line of an adjacent attendance area.

And this results in every aspect of the district being included in an elementary school boundary a middle school boundary and a high school boundary.

There's also something on a different page which I don't have directly in front of me that says that elementaries feed to middle school and that pattern is aligned but for high school They're not it's there's not a feeder pattern.

It's not an aligned feeder pattern.

So that's just some of the base policy challenges that we're trying to balance here.

So thank you for letting me kind of run those over and hopefully root us in some of the factors of what we're considering.

And so with that and thank you Rick for kind of going over the the goal of what we're trying to to accomplish today.

When after last month's board meeting the following day was operations committee and in that discussion we we talked about narrowing down into a few scenarios that would work.

And I think we're still working on getting those produced.

And having the localized highly capable services.

Pathways sunsetting in twenty nine twenty twenty one with the transition plan of what does that look like in the interim.

As one model maybe two depending on.

what folks feel and then also looking at if there is a regional pathway model where there would be more highly capable pathway schools.

But it wouldn't necessarily be every one and what that would look like and what that scenario would look like.

And so with that I would like to open it up to a question and discussion of thoughts.

What kind of information do we further need for the work session.

And you know what.

How can we.

Help provide the guidance collectively to staff so that we have what we need.

Next week so that we actually can have some scenarios one or two proverbially true to be able to compare them that are viable that meet all the goals that we're looking at and that balance our capacity.

Oh.

I guess can I try a specific leading question which is looking for feedback consensus impressions from directors on is there a level of comfort identifying a coherent or a consistent assignment what's that a scenario for a localized or essentially highly capable at every high school as one option.

And then whatever pathway is optimized that's not our single site at Garfield but not the you know we talked about five sites we talked about four sites.

What would an optimized HC pathways look like.

And what is that optimized scenario.

So those are the two two things that when we were having our conversations would be really interesting to say let's look at those two options.

That's sort of the entry point to the conversation because if we can narrow it down to those two then we can talk about each of them individually.

Director Geary did you.

To answer Director Burke I think we should map out whatever if the resolution should pass we should see how that maps out.

So and then as to the next scenario it's got to be something.

So we'll get there I suppose.

question for Director Herndon.

If we go forward and I know we haven't approved it but we certainly have been talking a lot about it with creating a comprehensive downtown school at the Seattle Center what year would you anticipate roughly that opening?

That's a very good question.

Part of that depends on the revenue stream associated with that.

If it turned out to be a BEX V item that would change that if it was a capital levy item and a subsequent levy that would change it roughly.

Once there would be a prioritization to that particular project it's roughly two and a half to three years whenever it gets prioritized and a funding stream would be associated with it.

So best case scenario fastest it could happen.

I would say if it was a BEX V item that is prioritized near the top 2022 2023 is when you could probably see something.

If it was in that levy and near the end generally the building cycle is about a six year cycle.

You're probably looking at more like 2020 6 2028 something like that.

And if it was in another levy which if we go by kind of our three year levy cycle.

So if there's a levy approved in 2022 it'd be three years after that.

Same thing probably that 2026 2028 hopefully not any later than that.

So.

And we're talking about high school boundaries going into effect 1920 now.

So we're looking at a decision that could last three to six years in terms of the mapping that we're doing.

This is not an in perpetuity boundary decision that we're looking at making right now.

If we were to go forward on this.

It would also depend on whether or not the board would want to establish a boundary for that additional high school or not.

So it's still possible you could build an additional high school and not have a boundary associated with it in which case you wouldn't necessarily have to redraw high school boundaries again.

But that's another point of discussion for the board that obviously could have an impact on lots of things within four or five years.

In four or five years.

All right.

Thank you.

Yes.

Director DeWolf.

Thanks Director Mack.

I think for me in order to make a decision about this one of the things that I I'd like to see particularly from a racial equity standpoint is just consideration or context in the entire district in what ways Do these scenarios impact or positively move us toward our commitment to racial ensuring educational racial equity.

So that's one thing.

I don't know if that's information we can overlay on these maps to be able to get a better idea but just really making sure that we are drilling into the racial equity component of this work.

The other question I had was have we done engagement with students and teachers or has it been primarily parents and families and then if we have or if we are in the future you know what are they saying and what is their feedback.

Certainly I think there'd be some nuance there but maybe some similarities.

And my only third thing is that I noticed that and really just want to again express gratitude for the families that have come out.

And have emailed me personally and I do try to look at every email.

But it does particularly seem to be parents from Ballard area.

So do we have a sense of parents that are not from Ballard what their kind of feelings are or considerations or concerns about this are because.

Well I think certainly the parents from Ballard have an important perspective.

Are we getting any information or feedback or concerns or thoughts from parents that are maybe not from the Ballard?

And is that just because of this particular redrawing thing?

Yes.

And so if any if there are any other parents outside of that conversation and whether there is feedback I'd be really curious to hear from some of that before making a decision as well.

So I can answer a few of those if you'd like very briefly and then I can save the meat of it and the data for next week.

Yes thank you.

So the first point on impacts of changes one of the items that we do have on change areas that we've looked at in maps.

This has been a data point that people have wanted to see in the past is.

What is the demographic look like the racial and reduced lunch population, special education population, LL population impacted by the change areas.

So in each of those scenarios we do try and put the demographics of the various families being impacted by those changes.

So that's one thing that we tried to integrate in that to bring that race and equity lens to at least the changes that we have there.

Clearly any of the tweaks you have in there are going to require updates in that information.

The other piece on engagement through our community meetings we did mostly have a lot of parents showing up.

We had a few students as well and future students who are concerned about the changes and what may be what how they may be impacted.

A few teachers but not a lot.

So that's what we had on the impact area.

The last portion that you had which was around.

Sorry I'm losing that last question that you had.

Ballard High School is just that one I feel like I understand.

Yeah that's just the grandfathering piece.

Both at the community meetings and at subsequent social gatherings that I go to because I also happen to be a parent within the school district.

We get that question a lot about what's happening and basically that boils down to the grandfathering piece that the board's going to also have to make a decision on whether or not.

If I'm in a change area and it's not required that my student help populate Lincoln High School, how does that impact the changes that happen to me?

Those were the biggest questions about those areas outside of the Ballard area.

Just to follow up to one of the groups that I didn't hear you mention within ELL for reduced lunch folks are students experiencing homelessness.

And I think obviously that has different implications and impact.

But do we have any sense particularly around students that have excuse me schools that have a larger portion of their population fed by shelters and other programs like that.

We have.

Is there a way that we could somehow get a sense of that too just to kind of.

Because obviously those are going to require some additional support.

Yeah we can try and get that data for the students that we know about and report.

Clearly you know homelessness is one of those categories that's vastly underreported.

So we could do the best with the data that we have but we can try and include that.

Harris.

You got my attention when you started talking about the downtown school at Seattle Center.

Are we making assumptions here that there will be a downtown school at Seattle Center and or that it will be the stadium school that comes with a price tag of what?

Well right now we don't have a price tag for that.

The Union City price tag was what?

Union City price tag was $165 million.

So that's substantially more than a buildout for a high school that we've done in the past.

Well if you were to compare it square footage to the renovations that we have for Lincoln high school it's not necessarily that far off.

And we're not doing the full renovation of Lincoln high school we still have portions of that building not being impacted.

Okay I guess I guess you have my attention.

Yes.

I am distressed that we may be folding that conversation into the next five years.

Do I believe that Queen Anne and Magnolia deserve their high school?

Absolutely I do.

But that to me represents a fairly significant departure from this conversation.

And and it concerns me greatly to director DeWolf's question about concerns and other parts of the city.

My last.

Out of my last four meetings the three previous ones were full to the gills of 30 folks very distressed that they didn't believe there would be enough of a cohort of highly capable West Seattle kids there in the interim.

Now is that representative?

I'm not going to suggest that it is.

Those are just the folks that come out to community meetings.

I'm.

Not terribly impressed that we are still reaching out to communities of color of low income and getting really thoughtful comprehensive feedback.

It concerns me greatly.

We continue to try and we're working hard on it.

But I I would not tell you that I have a sense.

I know that the folks that.

spend a couple hours a day on a bus to Garfield from West Seattle.

And it's a hoot trying to get out of West Seattle in the morning and coming home in the evening.

You could probably walk faster.

They have made the choice to put up with that extraordinary commute because they believe their cohort represents that and their selection of advanced learning programs.

And and again I believe the parents are very worried that their children are not keeping up in the college arms race.

But I can't tell you what District 6 thinks.

Not with any fidelity.

Absolutely can't.

But there are the folks that are showing up are very concerned.

So what what hopefully we can talk around a bit tonight is clarifying those two scenarios that we would like to have mapped.

The goals being that the capacity has to balance.

We have only so much space so that's one thing.

Proximity of students and all those things that I mentioned mattered.

I did want to I wanted to mention one thing that was brought up in public testimony in this map of the proximity of students to schools.

One of the major challenges we have with Lincoln and setting boundaries around it is that It is geographically close to Ballard and Roosevelt already so there's their walk zones potentially overlap each other.

And that's just fundamentally a challenge.

We sold off Queen Anne High School in the 80s.

So we don't have that building we don't have that space.

So what we have to work with is Lincoln.

It's a great building.

It's awesome.

And.

And I do think it's possible that we can set boundaries that optimize our capacity balance and are reasonable to the best of our abilities for the proximity questions and transportation and trying to balance all of that.

In response to your question Director DeWolf around hearing from community.

I think that we've been hearing there have been lots of anytime there's been a change there's certainly been lots of comments about I like this change I don't like this change and folks have been really vocal.

And so I trust that as we move forward in in refining these scenarios in the maps that those factors will be considered to the best of our ability.

So with that which are what are the scenarios we want to Do we have.

I think you know Director Geary was opening with the if the resolution were to pass what does that scenario look like.

And so do are there other directors that have specific opinions on the maps that we've done the feedback we've heard.

And again to put a put a box around this this is the idea of what.

Should our boundaries look like.

Based on.

Highly capable students being assigned to their attendance area high school in 2021. And.

Geary.

OK then I guess I'd be curious to see a map that that created an HCC pathway to West Seattle.

Garfield and.

Lincoln.

With the option at Ingram.

So that would be the pathway scenario?

Or that would be a transition scenario?

Yes so for clarification actually because this is a multidimensional challenge we're facing if we're looking at setting of optimizing for 2021 that's out in the future four years our enrollment projections start to get a little more fuzzy when we get out there so we have to acknowledge that We are doing our best to reflect the data we've got but making a decision for 2021 now is more challenging with our enrollment projections.

We have to we have to remember that that's part of the puzzle.

But if we're optimizing That in 2021 the goal would be for highly capable and advanced learning to be in every attendance area high school.

That those services would be provided.

They'd be robust.

We're hearing commitment that through the 24 credit task force etc that these things can happen.

I personally have some worry and concern around the cost of that.

What happens when we don't have enough students.

You know we've got a lot of challenges to potentially getting there.

However from a boundaries and pathways scenario so that we can make the decision around 2019 when Lincoln opens one of the scenarios That sounds like Director Geary what you're saying that we want to be able to look at is a map of boundaries that in 2021 is expected to decentralize the highly capable pathways.

But in the interim starting in 2019 would expand the pathways temporarily.

to Lincoln and West Seattle and leaving Ingram as the optional site as the transition to 2021. I I agree that that sounds like a very reasonable scenario for us to.

To come up with.

And then in the interim of that as well there's the.

Well so in 2019 and 20. For clarification for everyone sitting in the room here as well.

The expectation is that Lincoln will open up as a ninth and a 10th.

It's not opening up as a full comprehensive high school it's not opening up full and open up half full.

And in order for those students to come in for that year 2019 will be students in the change areas will be that are in ninth grade moving into the ninth grade or in 10th grade would be what we call geo split into Lincoln.

They would be taken from their existing school.

and moved.

Now primarily the vast majority of those that are going to be moved or be coming from Ballard and Roosevelt because that's where the boundaries are.

But just so that's part of the clarification around what actually happens in 2019. So that's the transition in 2019. And so ninth graders moving up would be assigned and 10th graders would actually be reassigned from whatever school they're in and pulled into Lincoln.

And then.

The next year 11th grade rolls up 11th grade rolls up and then in 2021 the expectation is that.

Pathways would be decentralized but the existing kids would be grandfathered.

Right.

You know.

This makes me think about the fact that in 2013 a board took it upon themselves to try and roll out a long term vision with which we have been fighting over year after year.

So you know to try and At some point we have to know that in the future whatever we do now may not turn out as we predicted and will need to be adjusted.

So I understand that we are doing the best we can with what we have to figure out what is going to move our city forward.

And for me Well the disruption is a problem.

We have to look at capacity.

We have to look at equity and we have to look at delivering an education.

And we have to look to our parents to support their kids through that as well.

I am a parent whose son went from Washington to Lincoln to Hamilton in a three year period.

And he managed to get through Ingraham IBX.

as its first class and we all know how terrible that was.

He's doing great.

So like Rick Burke there's some craziness that goes along with some of the choices we make as parents when we try to engineer our children's education.

And we at the board we're going to do our best to minimize that.

But I just throw that out as well.

There's it's just in four years we're going to have a different set of people.

Because somehow there's a pinch point that we didn't anticipate.

But that is what I'd like to see in terms of an interim is can we see what it would look like how it would draw out to put to start the pathways to start building up the pathways in West Seattle and at Lincoln because it seems to me we're going to need people in Lincoln and we know people from Ballard really want to do their best to stay in their school right now and so we can kick the can on that I guess maybe.

Can I ask for a quick.

Yes.

Does that sound like a good option one.

No.

Or do we want.

OK.

Director Harris.

I'm sorry I have a point of clarification here that.

Deputy Nielsen or someone else on the wall here can address.

It's my understanding that the past contract.

Gave a year's planning.

To principal Metzger.

to design a new high school.

So if we are now going to put HCC into that as one of the pathways are we violating the past CBA?

Because this has been brought up several times and we talk about whether principals are large and in charge and they get to determine the destiny or fate of their school.

I keep hearing back that the past contract allows it and they had a year plus planning time to determine what that would look like.

So does that follow now?

Because I still am going to go to my grave looking for the administrative oversight and the building based management in terms of principles.

I don't get clear consistent answers on this and I I'm frustrated by that fact.

Mr. Starosky will help provide perspective.

Thank you.

Dr. Starosky.

Mike Starosky chief of schools.

So there's nothing in the past contract that specifically calls out around HCC or planning.

It does specifically call about about planning principles.

So anything that Ruth Metzger the planning principal would be going through is whatever direction she's given by the board and the superintendent.

So she's doing the best she can with what she's got but there's nothing in the past contract that prevents you from making that decision.

Thank you for that clarification and please no one misunderstand me.

I think principal Metzger is a rock star.

It's a question of educational philosophy and where our programs and services and curriculum are placed.

Thank you.

Director Burke.

I want to try out something and build off of what Director Geary had said because I think we've we've looked at we looked at a previously a five pathway model.

And my concerns are that making Ballard and Roosevelt which were both part of that pathway into HC schools.

For example Ballard currently has 126 HC students in it but it has 329 in its attendance area.

So if we make it an HC designated school essentially we get 203 students that are saying wow I have it close to home and it means we have to shrink the boundaries to accommodate those 203 students.

So so that gives me some pause that maybe we can get there eventually but accelerating that doesn't necessarily work in our best interest.

But we have Garfield already.

We have Ingram already.

I heard in a couple of these scenarios the idea of West Seattle and I'm looking over here to Director Harris if you know that's her area.

But if our two scenarios are decentralized with these intermediate pathways in 2019 to Lincoln to West Seattle and Garfield.

Is that a viable transition scenario to decentralized that we can do a long term map on a decentralized model as option 1 and option 2 is that we just maintain those pathways and we draw we optimize the maps around those transition pathways.

Director Geary one second I want to take a point.

One of the things that I've been thinking a lot about is that if we are going to be providing advanced learning and highly capable in all of our schools then we need to start Lincoln off strong with that.

We need to be we need to have AP there.

We need it needs to if we're going to be doing it all at the schools anyway we need to support those schools in beefing up those programs having enough students and so forth.

So we actually I like that you suggested this is a transition because I think it is a helpful transition if we're decentralizing in 2021 to actually making that happen.

So Director Geary.

Oh let me let me contradict myself now.

So as I listen to you talk director Burke realize that once again it's going to be the same families that if we don't map it out to Ballard and Roosevelt now and we map it to Lincoln allowing and then we decentralized later and we expand so all of a sudden it's again those people living around those Lincoln kind of around Lincoln that they're going to be the ones like oh what year is it?

Where's my kid going?

And you know everybody at the center of the city who lives along there they are the ones that are constantly being flipped back and forth between schools and they're tired of it.

They don't have a history.

So now I'm thinking we have to weigh that as well and what what would be the easier long term transition on family planning even if there are pinch points.

in pushing to Ballard and Roosevelt now but establishing a long term stable boundary for Lincoln so that those families aren't being flipped based upon well we're going to do Lincoln here and now we're going to bump out.

Whereas if we bump out now it is going to fill up Roosevelt and Ballard but we're going to draw the boundaries.

It's going to be hard now but it's not going to be hard now.

And in three years from now or two years from now.

So I mean these are hard things.

But those families are the ones that take it.

Yes thank you Director Geary.

I think I think the direct director.

Director Burke will will clarify what he was saying but the the.

The plan would not be to change the boundaries in 2021 is actually to set it so that it wouldn't have to move again.

But there would be this transition and it's possible.

Harris.

I want to mention that we have a time check here of 11 minutes.

Remaining.

And let me correct what I had said because I think you had mentioned Lincoln and I think I'd left Lincoln out.

So the idea that there are three sites Lincoln Garfield West Seattle optional Ingram.

We design two boundary scenarios one which says we will decentralize by 2021 and that's what we're designing for.

And it'll be a little bit painful getting there.

But we'll work it out with portables and mitigation between them but we're only doing one boundary change in 2019 planning for 2021. And so that scenario would be designing those boundaries for a decentralized future.

Option two is designing those boundaries for maintaining those transition pathways in perpetuity.

So that's that's that cleans up cleans up the story we say we have a transition plan that either is the plan or it's a step towards.

Essentially what's called out in the in the board resolution is going through C&I and those would be the two scenarios for consideration.

Essentially to provide staff guidance on how do you optimize these maps.

I'm calling for a step towards which would anchor some boundaries for those families.

Director Pinkham.

I definitely appreciate the conversation here but before we end up with this I still got a voice that as we look at drawing these different boundaries the HCC students.

What's the impact on the racial imbalance then on these schools as we move things around and oh now we get a high concentration HCC students are trying to serve and that's going to be predominantly you know Caucasian students and then we're going to then create these racially imbalanced schools.

So we got.

When you look at these scenarios that's what I want to see as well.

What is going to happen to the racial distribution for the high schools as we look at this is going to be the attendance area high school and these are the boundaries.

Well what's going to be an impact on the racial imbalance.

So just a quick answer to that.

One of the pieces we can try and project the enrollment numbers.

It's a little bit harder to project what the demographics of those enrollment numbers might be especially in a city like Seattle that's changing fairly rapidly.

the demographics are changing.

So we'll do our best based on whatever these particular boundary scenarios might be.

And then we can we'll run it through the racial and non aggravating same formula that we do for all of the other high schools where we're creating a new a new boundary.

Dr. Herndon would it be possible to potentially create a heat map of across the city so that we could see I'm not sure what the metric would be but is there a heat map that might actually show.

Diversity.

I don't know what the right word is but is there is there some way to show that to us so that you could at least overlay the map and say clearly this area of the city these are you know the more dense and that kind of thing.

It would depend on what factors you'd like to see in the heat map.

So you'd have to define the characteristics that you're trying to create with I guess the temperature of the heat map that you want to look at.

So we can we've done that for free and reduced lunch population students we've done that for HCC students actually when we were looking at the heat map of where students who identified for advanced learning lived.

And then we have any other demographic area you want.

It would just be as a board.

What's the defined area that what's the defined characteristics that you'd like to see.

Right.

So we have ones that have already been created for FRL.

Correct.

Yeah.

OK.

Director Harris.

I think that the families in West Seattle and South Park would prefer to stay on the peninsula.

But I think it's a matter of trust.

And frankly I'd like to put some poison pills in this resolution whatever we do that says that it will have the appropriate funding that it will have the appropriate mitigation in working up to a rich offering of A.L.

classes.

And I'd also like to suggest that I believe in using the racial equity tool as much as anyone else and that we need to recognize it.

But I frankly do not understand how we can reverse with one swipe of the pen 40 years of redlining if we still want neighborhood schools and therein lies A very terrible terrible thing.

And I'd like your thoughts on that please.

Associate Superintendent Herndon.

You are correct.

I mean I think that's the challenge that exists within any urban center.

Any city across the United States deals with this challenge.

We of course are part of the city and our students live in different parts of neighborhoods and as you're explaining You know, the practices of the past are what we're living with now.

and the patterns of of where housing is available and the types of housing that are available that determines a tremendous amount about what's even available to people.

So I think that that is I think we've had a lot of conversations about that over the past about neighborhood schools and how that reflects the degree to which a city is segregated.

So the more segregated your city is the more you're going to get segregated schools if you're depending on a neighborhood school.

The converse to that though is as as you probably recall and others and I wasn't part of the Seattle School District at that point but the attempts to diversify that through busing also had equally impactful.

results because then people said now you're taking me out.

Many of the things you heard tonight from public testimony you are taking me out of my neighborhood to go to a completely different other a different part of the city.

For I think very good intentions about having robust and diverse schools in which you can promote tolerance and learning from various cultures and people.

But there's there's a cost to that.

There's there's a cost that I think both financially in the actual busing and there's a cost to students not necessarily feeling a part of that community because they're no longer within their their neighborhood however they might define that whatever that radius may be.

So I think that that's a challenge.

But I would like to think that one of our attempts that that we've been trying to do over the years precedes me obviously and many others but it is to make sure that every single school that we have is a fantastic school.

And everything I've heard tonight from from board members and from community input is you know I know it's probably going to be a great school but there's always that concern about leaving the school that they know.

And if anything this gets to I think what you were talking about Director Harris which is if we're going to do something let's resource it properly.

Let's make sure that we're thinking about the long term sustainability of it.

Let's just not go with an idea and then not think about what it's going to take to make that happen.

So I think those are the impacts that we have to take a look at on here.

The decisions that we're getting ready to make and what Not just the short term pieces.

We know that this doesn't solve the interim pieces.

We still have a year and a half until Lincoln opens and then possibly a year or two after that.

But it is you know what is the long term impact as well.

Director Burke.

I'm just recognizing we're in a time resource constrained thing and I guess my question to staff would be if if there is a if there is a hope or dream of taking all of the complex information out there and turning it into two scenarios what more do you need from the board?

What questions would you ask us to help you optimize that work?

Because there's limited resources and a lot of ways to spin that.

And actually Director Burke if I if I could actually kind of just come back to the board and get the perspective what I heard offered up as two scenarios that we think we would like to see in the maps is optimized boundaries for 21 2021 decentralization with the transition of Lincoln Garfield.

And West Seattle is the highly capable pathways.

And that the other option would be not decentralizing in 2021. And the boundaries that would be associated with that that would be.

in perpetuity and that those are basically the two options that we feel comfortable seeing and weighing.

Am I am I getting a good sense from folks that can I get nods yes or no.

Yes no.

Yes.

Director Pinkham.

My concern is that just seems to concentrate more on the HCC and not necessarily on where we're as Ballard's been saying hey what about my community.

I think that's an excellent point.

And I think that's a very excellent point.

I think that the concern around 85th to 80th, one of our main factors we have to consider is not moving boundaries if we don't need to.

So maybe that is something that can be appropriately worked into.

I think that I think that in response to the community input that we're hearing about some things that actually do seem a bit unreasonable that that as we're drawing those optimized boundaries we try to be as.

Respectful as as possible of those specific things.

And I'll just take a personal.

My own personal opinion I do agree that I think it doesn't make sense to drop the boundary from 85th to 80th personally but we have to see what those how it works out and if we can actually set a boundary that makes sense.

I trust and I do believe having worked on these sorts of things for a while there is there is there is a way for us to get a better solution.

That meets most people's needs and I'm hopeful.

Director Patu I don't know if you had anything that you wanted to say you haven't.

OK good.

So you're going to have maps at the work session next Wednesday and will the boundary review folks have maps.

So the boundary on the maps and what are our next steps.

Right.

So the map.

So the next steps in the process which is sort of up there but the next step in the process is on Friday.

There's a highly capable the high school boundaries task force meets.

And you know working up these scenarios and these maps take some time so I don't know if both of those scenarios will be ready for that.

I'm hopeful.

So Dr. Herndon is that possible for the task force to review it.

And then it comes to us on the 10th for review and conversation.

We can try our best.

We did have a conversation today with the person who's helping us mediate the task force and said you know we wanted to make sure we heard the conversation tonight and what we could do.

So that's why I was just conferring with Miss Davies there to figure out what we can do.

I.

We're going to have to talk after this meeting to figure out what we can.

We're going to do our best to give this information and summarize this for the task force so they understand what's coming up coming their way and the input that the board has given.

And then clearly we want to be able to have maps that show those two scenarios that you're looking at for the work session next Wednesday.

And then along with that.

is going to be data.

If I can if I can summarize as well data showing impacted populations in the change areas.

I think also to Director Harris's point the cost of implementing not only a decentralization.

I don't know how much cost we'll get but but the best we can on decentralization as well as the pathway pieces.

So because it's it is about the boundaries and the impacts on that.

But it's also about the programming that the conversation is happening and there's definitely a resource allocation piece to that.

And it's also about regaining trust.

Absolutely.

And we want to take a look as as best we can.

on the equitable impact of the programs also being out there.

So I know it's a tremendous amount.

There's been a lot of thought into it.

We're just going to have to confer as a team to figure out how we can bring that data together for you because I think it will be a very rich conversation next Wednesday.

And we also have ops committee meeting on Thursday where we're going to talk a little bit more about what the work session will look like.

So lots of opportunities for.

But I'm you know I'm really personally grateful to you for how much work you guys have been doing especially over the holidays and to the board and everyone for.

Yes.

Dr. Nielsen.

I don't want to interrupt but keep going and then I have a request.

She's out of time.

Deputy Nielsen you got to make it quick.

We still have 13 items on the agenda.

I understand that.

That said if we don't as staff get this right we've wasted a lot more than five minutes right now.

So I want to make sure that staff is very very clear about what you are all saying.

And so I'm going to repeat what I think I heard and I think it's obvious but I want to make sure that this is accurate.

OK.

So first scenario option would be that we would look at the West Seattle Garfield Lincoln scenario.

The other would be that we would go to full pathways in 2021 and a bridge to get us there in that amount of time.

OK.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Director Harris.

So.

So how does Southeast District fit into all this?

Because I you know you're talking about the North End and also West Seattle but that's the reason why I didn't have any comments because Southeast was not mentioned in any of this.

Right.

Right.

Well the impact on Southeast is that.

You there's no boundary changes currently being proposed there your height your pathways are not being changed from what they are.

Which is a good thing.

Right.

It's Garfield.

Right.

And so the impact on the southeast is minimal from these changes.

The primary impact is because Lincoln's in the north and that's where the and then the impact of some of those students going to Garfield and that kind of thing.

So Director Geary.

Just on because this we have been very quiet on Southeast so I think it's worth mentioning that a lot of this discussion at least in this discussion I am mindful that we we need to continue to commit to the IB program at Rainier Beach as an educational option.

We have the STEM program at Cleveland which has proven to be very successful which is another option for families.

And at this point to do anything further especially as the IB is getting stronger and stronger at Rainier Beach in terms of shifting its population.

I think leaving it at Garfield is probably transitionally the best thing to do also to let the Garfield population adjust to changes it's going to be experiencing as well.

So I think I think that's my thoughts around it.

Point of personal privilege I would remind folks that the SIG grant will be expiring for the IB program at Rainier Beach and that we started and we continue to run the IB programs without sustainable funding sources that are expensive programs.

Needs to be on the record.

OK thank you very much Director Mack you did a hell of a job.

Appreciate that.

Number six approval of the 2018 19 growth boundaries plan for Genesee Hill Elementary School and Lafayette Elementary School.

Approval of this item would outline changes in the boundaries for Genesee Hill and Lafayette beginning in the 2018 19 school year in order to address overcrowding at Genesee Hill and utilize additional space at Lafayette.

May we hear from the Ops chair regarding the December 7th meeting.

Was it put forward for consideration.

Yes it was put forward for consideration.

And my notes say that.

May I ask a question of the folks at the dais please.

Yes.

You had four or five meetings with these community groups.

And I believe you reach consensus with Genesee Hill and Lafayette.

Is that fair statement?

You're getting good reviews.

I think which is not always the case.

Right.

I think that is fairly accurate.

I mean clearly there will always be some people who who would like something different but I would say the majority of the feedback that we've seen a vast majority of feedback that we receive was a realization that a change had to happen.

And that this seemed to be the most reasonable case for that to be implemented.

Okay.

Any director comments concerns or questions.

Director Harris I was able to pull up my notes on what the reason why it was put forward for consideration was because I believe there's still a question that we need to decide on on grandfathering and whether or not we want to commit to funding the transportation for grandfathering and that that is not yet clarified.

Herndon So the impact of grandfathering and transportation would essentially be one bus.

It's around $65,000 I think.

So that's the impact of grandfathering with transportation in that case.

Harris And is that Jarrell's recommendation and the recommendation of the school communities?

Both.

We realize that given the last conversations about a change area especially affecting elementary schools we're taking that as guidance from the board to say this is your preference.

That's why we want to include the cost of transportation.

And without a doubt families during our meetings definitely expressed a high interest in making sure that they could grandfather to complete their schooling at the at their designated school right now.

Any more comments questions concerns.

Seeing none.

Number seven.

Excuse me.

I just wanted to share with my colleagues that I'm going to try to catch the last 15 minutes of my community engagement at Hamilton and relieve Jolynn Berge who has been representing the district with candor and aplomb I'm sure.

So I thank you for the conversation.

We'll catch up with you later.

Drive safe.

Number seven approval of the 2018 19 transportation service standards.

Approval of this item would determine where and when the department excuse me the district provides transportation for students.

The chair of ops please.

Yes this item was brought forward for consideration.

The reason it's under consideration and not for approval is that the updated bell times needed to be edited and the addition of the transportation for the grandfathering for Genesee Hill this prior one would need to be added if we so choose to have that.

Harris Assistant Superintendent McEvoy understanding we have another 12 items on the agenda.

Do you have some highlights for us?

McEvoy Well I do and I was going to provide some background in that this is something that we do annually.

That in this year there is three major components to the transportation service standards.

We are not looking to make large changes in the base plan.

There is some changes we are making for recommendations in the whether we are going to recommend sunsetting or not the previous boards had discussed so we want to highlight that and we also are making A couple of bell time changes arrival departure changes because the schools have asked us to do that and they are moving in and out of an interim site.

So that's very appropriate for that.

As far as the Genesee Hill grandfathering and providing the additional bus service that is not included yet because we were waiting to hear the board discussion on that.

So with that I'm going to ask Kathy Katterhagen to come up and quickly walk through each of the details so that you have that information.

Thank you.

Good evening.

So the transportation service standards base plan mainly focuses on transportation eligibility criteria bus stop locations and space available transportation.

This plan states that the district provides transportation to students residing within the boundary and outside of the walk zone to their attendance area school.

High school students residing more than two miles from their attendance area school receive ORCA cards for Metro bus service.

Middle school students may receive yellow bus transportation or an ORCA card if they reside more than one and a half miles from their attendance area school.

And elementary and K-8 students receive yellow bus service if they reside more than one mile from their attendance area school.

The base plan also defines how services provided for students requiring specialized transportation as reflected in their individual education plan or IEP and students requiring specialized medical transport.

There are changes to two sections of the base plan as well as some formatting adjustments.

Those two changes are the removal of section L midday kindergarten services as the district now provides full day kindergarten and revisions to section O streamlining the appeals process for efficiency and to provide families with quicker resolution.

Let me provide some history for the appeals process.

So prior to the 16 17 school year a formalized appeals process for denied transportation requests did not exist.

Therefore staff created an appeals process based on an existing district appeals process which was then adopted in the 16 17 transportation service standards.

Now at this time we're recommending a more streamlined process to provide a review by experienced transportation management that can fairly and expeditiously assess the request and provide a quicker response to the families.

And in reality only a handful of appeals are received each year for yellow bus service or Orca cards for students that do not meet the standards criteria.

Per the discussion at the operations committee it is important that we review the appeals process as we pilot this new guideline.

This information will be presented at the operations committee on a quarterly basis to ensure that this process is equitable and transparent.

We will also provide information each month through the Friday letter.

Moving on to Appendix A other exceptions we are recommending that we sunset add and maintain certain items in Appendix A. First we recommend sunsetting items 1 and 4. Item 1 was the 2013 14 through 2016 17 grandfathering of transportation for Hazelwood students.

that reside in the Jane Adams middle school and Eckstein middle school attendance areas and outside the John Marshall walk zone.

This item is sunsetting with concurrence from the principal.

Item 4 was the transportation provided to Licton Springs K-8 students while attending school at their interim site Lincoln building.

These students have since moved to their permanent Licton Springs location and therefore this transportation is not necessary no longer necessary.

Although previous boards recommended sunsetting items 2 and 3 we are recommending maintaining items 2 and 3 in Appendix A. Item 2 we are recommending that Licton Springs students enrolled in the Jane Adams middle school attendance areas and outside the Lincoln walk area in the 2013-14 school year continue to receive district provided transportation through the next year.

As the principal has advised discontinuing transportation for these 30 students would decimate their program.

We believe that we can preserve this service within our current transportation budget.

Also we are recommending maintaining item 3 for Graham Hill students residing in the Dearborn Park, Dunlap, Emerson, Martin Luther King Jr., Van Asselt and Wing Luke attendance areas in the 2014-15 school year.

They should continue receiving transportation next year as this service will help provide equitable access to the Montessori program and is cost neutral for the district.

For additions we are recommending adding items to the items three and four in appendix A And this is grandfathering transportation for Whittier and Adams as approved by the board in the November 1st boundary changes.

New item three existing 2017-18 Whittier elementary students who reside outside the walk zone in areas 127 and 128 receive transportation through the fifth grade school year 2022-23.

New item four existing 2017-18 Adams elementary students who reside in area 2 outside the walk zone will receive transportation through grade 5 school year 2022 23. The final attachment to the transportation service standards is the appendix B school arrival and departure times.

We have two schools that are moving out of or into an interim site Loyal Heights and Queen Anne Elementary both schools have requested bell time changes and in support of these two schools we are recommending changes to their arrival and departure times.

Loyal Heights requested moving from tier 2 to tier 1 as they move out of their interim site at John Marshall.

to their new building and Queen Anne elementary students will be attending an interim site at John Marshall next year and request changing from tier 1 to tier 2. Queen Anne did an extensive survey of its families and the majority of those families requested moving to a later tier.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Harris.

Comments questions concerns from my colleagues.

Thank you very very much.

Number eight approval of the disciplinary appeal council appointees approval of this item would appoint volunteers to serve on the disciplinary appeal council that will hear student discipline appeals from initial hearing officer decisions.

The Ops chair please.

This item came in front of ops on December 7th and was moved forward for consideration.

The reason is that we still need to recruit two board members to actually be on this to be appointed to this appeals council.

Mr. Boy.

Thank you Ronald Boy a senior general senior assistant general counsel.

That is correct.

But I will say that board directors are off the hook because we did receive interest from other volunteers that wanted to join the council.

So you do not have to volunteer.

But just briefly at the Discipline Appeals Council.

is set up because every time a student is disciplined in Seattle Public Schools part of their due process rights include the final step which is an appeal to the school board.

The law allows the school board to appoint a council to hear these appeals and make the final decision on the discipline.

And that is what we are doing here.

Our policy sets up that our council serves three year terms.

The terms of the current council are up so that we have a new set of volunteers that are willing to serve three-year terms and we have the list attached to the bar I'm happy with the the volunteers for this council.

We have a very diverse group of individuals from a number of walks of life.

That should get a give a good perspective for the students appeals.

And I think that we will have plenty to to hear the cases.

Harris.

Comments questions concerns.

Seeing none we move on.

Excuse me.

Director DeWolf.

Sorry.

Timeline here but just to clarify you don't need anybody from the board.

I do not.

If you would if you'd like to volunteer I'd be happy to.

But I'll keep you posted.

OK.

Keep me posted.

Thank you very much.

OK thank you.

Excuse me.

You're not done yet.

Director Pinkham.

Isn't Judy Hawkins an employee?

Yes she is.

But she's listed as a community member on this appeals council.

Yes and that is because staff members who are not teachers or principals are considered to be community members according to the procedure.

Yeah good question.

Yeah and there's a number of community members that are indicated on the list that are in fact staff members.

I'd say that's probably about four of the people who are indicated as community members.

Could you asterisk and footnote that please.

Yeah you bet.

Transparency and all that.

Sweet.

OK.

We good.

We good.

Thank you.

Number nine acceptance of gift of playground improvements at John Hay Elementary.

Approval of this item would give approval to the John Hay partners board in partnership with the John Hay Elementary Foundation to initiate a self-help playground project at John Hay Elementary that may exceed two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

Good evening.

I'm great excuse me hang on.

Ops committee chair.

Yes hello.

This was moved forward for consideration from the December 7th meeting and the reason was that I guess we wanted some more background info on.

I'm not recalling the details of what we wanted more information on but hopefully you will remember and you can tell us all about it.

Thank you.

I believe I remember.

Thank you.

I'm Gretchen DeDecker program manager for self-help projects.

And for those of you who aren't familiar which I think you all might be a self-help project is any project to improve buildings or grounds that is initiated and carried out by someone other than facilities capital or technology departments.

So I'm going to skip some of this for you but self-help projects have been around since the mid 1970s.

Project sponsors typically are parent groups businesses students teachers and nonprofit organizations.

And as was stated when the value of a self-help project is expected to exceed $250,000 then school board policy requires that the school board considers and decides whether to accept the self-help gift.

So this evening I'm presenting a playground project sponsored by the John Hay parent group for your consideration.

Earlier this evening and I introduced them to people here.

Principal Tammy Beach was here and also parent Laura Mulcahy and Huggins and her daughter.

But they needed to go home.

So the project at John Hay is in response to a conceptual master plan that the PTA developed after they hired a landscape architect with Department of neighborhood funding.

And they received significant input.

They had three community meetings and a lot of outreach to have people come to their meetings and share information out into the community also.

So they are currently in the process of developing construction documents for phase one.

And depending on the success of the fundraising we are expecting that the value will likely exceed $250,000.

Phase one will focus on reconfiguration of the grass field to improve play and recreation opportunities and it will include a running path and additional play structure aimed toward students in the upper grades, a revised playfield and natural areas.

And what we what you did ask us to to include in updating the BAR was the fact that we've been in communication with staff from our capital department to ensure that the playground improvements do not conflict with potential future building expansion.

So I'm happy to answer any questions comments questions concerns from my colleagues.

I'll bite.

Thank you.

This is this is a continuing theme.

We have many schools that cannot afford to raise two hundred and fifty thousand dollars to put grass on their asphalt etc etc etc.

How do we start working towards a more equitable solution.

So we are not quite so polarized in haves and have nots.

I don't know if I can specifically answer that but I do want to state one thing that I'm excited about is that in the next capital program there's plans to include playgrounds in the capital program.

at this time.

And what I'm working on right now is our playground inventory.

And it's been a while since playgrounds.

And I knew that.

And I also would appreciate it if you and Associate Superintendent Herndon can send out that incredibly powerful list that I received about three or three months ago.

I think I responded with one word.

Wow.

We have a lot of playgrounds.

We do definitely we can actually start feeding the board on that so that we can be ramped up because I don't believe this board is going to turn down the opportunity for fresh air and equity.

We can certainly make sure the board consistently receives that information as it's updated.

Other questions comments or concerns.

Thank you very much and thanks for your hard work and working with the community.

Number 10 adopting resolution number 2017 18 dash 12 to approve the purchase of 18 acre parcel located at 13 0 0 1 MLK Junior Way South.

Approval of this item would allow the pursuit of purchase of real property in the amount of four million dollars to provide a new location.

to house school bus parking facility equipment and fleet parking as well as a possible future location for a new school district warehouse.

Operations chair please.

This item was moved forward for approval from the October 5th meeting before I was here so I'm wondering if Director Geary or Director Pinkham can speak to it.

And the board has met on several occasions because it had to do with real estate.

And I believe you have consensus.

Mr. Treat you're here.

Is the deal done at this point.

Good evening Noel Treat general counsel we have a binding deal with the seller for us for the district to purchase the property but I wouldn't say the deal is done because right now assuming the board approves this agreement going forward that was one contingency of the agreement as we needed board approval but we now have several months to do the district's due diligence so we're going to be looking closely and we've hired some experts to help at the at the properties environmental condition the county land use codes whether we can get our use permitted.

We have an architect helping to look at whether we can actually build and use the site.

Harris And that's all included on the four million dollars is that correct?

Yes so well no the 4 million is for the purchase itself we are using additional capital funds to hire these experts to analyze help us analyze the property after that due diligence period is over we will take that information and assuming there is no flag.

And those fees will be under $250,000?

They should be yes.

Yes.

And certainly for any individual contract.

We've got a variety of different consultants in different firms to help.

It's a complicated piece of property.

But at the end of that period we would then make a decision assuming there's no red flags or anything that might cause us to want to walk away like a significant environmental problem.

Then we'd move to closing later this year.

At which point the deal would at which point the deal would be done and we'd take title.

Questions comments concerns.

Seeing none.

Let's move on.

Thank you very much.

11 BEX IV and PTA IV Lincoln High School modernization project construction ability report.

Didn't know that was a word and implementation plan approval of this item is required by the Washington administrative code WAC 392-343-080 as part of the office of superintendent of public instruction OSPI D form.

Approval process to receive state funding assistance for the Lincoln High School modernization project.

Good evening.

Operations chair.

Yes this item was moved forward from the December 7th meeting for approval.

Good evening.

Lucy Morello senior project manager capital department board acceptance of the Lincoln High School constructability review report is a requirement for state match from OSPI.

It helps secure up to eight point approximately eight point two million in state funding assistance.

The intent of the constructability review process is to shoot to assure design quality Reduce the risk of change orders or claims during the construction process.

This review was performed at 95 percent construction documents by LRC consultants.

Their fee was seventy five thousand eight hundred forty six dollars.

Recommended corrections and revisions were incorporated into the bid documents by Bassetti architects.

Are there any questions?

Seeing none from my colleagues.

We're good.

Thank you.

Number 12 BEX IV and BTA IV Lincoln High School approval of guaranteed maximum price to general contractor construction manager contract P 5 0 8 4 to Leidig Construction Inc.

Approval of this item would authorize the superintendent to execute the final negotiated guaranteed maximum price GMP as defined by RCW 39.10.370 for Lincoln High School modernization project Contract P 5 0 8 4 in an amount not to exceed sixty three thousand.

Sixty three.

Million.

Whoa.

One hundred sixteen thousand six ninety one excluding Washington state sales tax.

Operations chair please.

This item was moved forward for consideration I believe because we didn't actually have the numbers there and there was also a list of alternates or alternatives that was to be provided.

Thank you.

Thank you.

School board approval of the negotiated guaranteed max price or what we call GMP is a requirement for state match.

This approval is more technical in nature as the GMP amount remains the same as previously authorized by the school board on June 28th 2017. Because this is a GCCM project as you may know.

Acronyms spelled out please.

Okay general contractor, general construction manager, so it's an alternative method that is allowed by the state for public agencies.

So since this is a GCCM project we brought the contractor lighted construction for Lincoln high school on early as part of the design team to work with the school district and the architect.

So therefore we the board approved a contract early we amended it in June 28 2017. This is a formality to come back to say we are within the same guaranteed maximum price.

And this is just affirming that the existing contract is still 63 million 116 thousand 691. This is after the light of construction the general contractor did all its subcontracting bids.

We actually came under.

So we bought that number up to 63 million one hundred sixteen thousand with alternates that we included that we were able to pick up.

Can you give us a paragraph about what the alternates are?

Sure I can.

I could tell you what some of the alternates are.

It's it's mainly doing some more work in the east building doing mechanical work and fire sprinkler systems in the building.

It's also adding lighting controls.

Adding a three ply roofing on the central building.

And am I missing anything else?

And mechanical lighting controls.

So these are all things we wanted but because we got a lower bid we could back them back in.

Is that correct?

Yes.

OK.

Questions comments concerns from my colleagues.

Thank you.

Number 13. BEX IV and BTA IV for Lincoln High School resolution 2017 18 dash 7 five year use slash 30 year building life.

Approval of this item would certify the five year use of an instructional building and 30 year building life of Lincoln High School.

This is required by Washington Administrative Code.

WAC 3 9 2 hyphen 3 4 7 hyphen 0 1 5 and 3 9 2 hyphen 3 4 7 hyphen 0 3 0 as part of the office of superintendent public instruction OSPI D as in dog form approval process to receive state funding assistance for the project.

Ops chair please.

It's this item was moved for approval at the December 7th meeting.

School school board acceptance of the five year use 30 year building life resolution 2017 slash 18 dash 7 is a requirement for state match in order to receive state assistance.

The state requires school facilities that are modernized to be used as a school for instructional purposes purposes for at least five years after the completion of the project.

and that the useful life of the building be extended at least 30 years.

Are there any questions?

I get to ask that question.

Questions comments concerns.

Seeing none.

Thank you Ms. Morello.

Much appreciated.

Thank you.

Number 14 BEX IV resolution 2017 slash 18 dash 1 racial imbalance analysis for Wing Luke elementary school replacement project.

Approval of this item would certify under WAC 3 9 2 hyphen 3 4 2 hyphen 0 2 5 that the Wing Luke elementary replacement project will not create or aggravate racial imbalance.

Sir were you here during public testimony?

I was.

OK.

I was upstairs listening to it.

OK.

We need to hear from Ops chair and then if you could address the public.

Testimony concerns it would be much appreciated.

Yeah this item was moved forward for approval from the December 7th meeting.

I'll just comment that in that conversation the assurance was provided that the racial imbalance does in fact exist but it's not being created by renovating the building and that that is it is Yes the imbalance exists and we're changing the building but not moving boundaries or changing assignment to the building.

Is that by virtue of the neighborhood makeup?

Yes I do believe that would be the case or the assignment.

I'm not I'm not positive actually that's a good question for.

Boundary changes were indeed made because the facility at Wing Luke is getting larger.

So the boundary changes affected both Van Asselt and Wing Luke.

And that is what we looked at.

Those two areas the existing boundaries and the proposed boundaries that were approved in.

2013 but will not be implemented until the school opens in 2019.

Do we have a sense of how much the imbalance is either exacerbated or lessened because it started imbalance correct?

Van Asselt the.

The analysis indicates that there is no impact to Van Asselt.

It remains racially imbalanced in the existing scenario and then in the proposed new boundary at Wing Luke it's similar.

But there is an existing racial imbalance but it's not aggravated in the proposed new boundary.

So under the WAC we are in compliance.

We're not aggravating an existing.

I'm not asking about the WAC I'm asking.

about degree.

How much has it changed?

It's slightly for Wing Luke the racial imbalance slightly improves under the new scenario slightly improves.

Thank you.

Other directors questions comments concerns.

Excuse me the Ops chair.

Yeah.

When this came through Ops I did not hear about a related boundary change and it was not.

aware of that when we considered it for approval.

So that's a little bit of new information to me that I'm kind of wanting to understand a bit more.

I know boundaries were set in 2013. School is planned to be open in 2019.

That is correct.

And that's actually listed in the board action report.

Yes yes yes I'm sorry.

So.

The boundary for 2019 will be approved next year.

Correct.

The boundary for 2019 has already been approved.

It was approved in 2013.

Yes but all of those boundaries come before the board each year before they actually move.

Correct.

So the way that the actions happened in 2013 were all of those boundaries were approved.

However we bring them back to the board to see if there's any modification that needs to happen.

If there's no modification that needs to happen based on new information or enrollment then we wouldn't suggest or recommend any changes.

If there is a need for a change based on either enrollment or some other factor in that then we would bring that forward to the board.

But we basically are letting the board we would be letting the board know a year in advance whether or not there needed to be a change or recommendation to the boundary that was approved back in 2013.

And just for clarification this boundary change.

from what your analysis showed did not increase the racial inequity or the imbalance.

That's correct.

It actually slightly improved it.

Correct.

So still imbalanced but there's some improvement.

Correct.

Do we have any information on what it would take to actually dramatically improve it?

I think what you have is in this particular area if you were to dramatically improve it you would dramatically aggravate somebody else's boundary.

Because the demographics between those two areas are very similar.

So to try and really balance one you're going to radically imbalance another one.

You're going to aggravate the imbalance at another school.

Yeah I understand.

Thank you.

their questions comments concerns on this issue.

Seeing none.

Thank you very much.

Number 15 BTA 3 and BTA 4 award contract K 1 3 0 3 for purchase and installation of portable classroom modules.

Approval of this item would authorize the superintendent to enter into a contract for the purchase and installation of portable classroom modules to support the district's 2018 19 annual short term capacity management action plan and provide portable classrooms to identified schools to meet the projected district homeroom and program capacity needs for the 2018 19 school year.

Ops please.

Yeah this item was brought forward for consideration from the December 7th Ops meeting.

Is there a reason we didn't have a number in number 15?

Because right now they're blank and I was going to explain that in my presentation.

We're actually out to bid and we should be opening bids and so when we come back for action you'll see those numbers filled in.

Do you have a guesstimate?

I could tell you that the capacity management budget for the both motions and all of capacity management is approximately 4.5 million in portables.

I would say that has to encounters that covers everything that covers portables and it also covers repurposing classrooms too.

Other questions comments concerns from my colleagues.

I would like to hear her presentation quickly and then I do have some questions.

Terrific.

Please go ahead.

Board approval contract K 13 0 3 is for the purchase and installation of 11 portable classrooms that supports the 2018 19 capacity management action plan and provides portable classrooms to multiple schools for the upcoming school year.

This motion is coming to the board early this year due to the long lead time needed to procure and install portables for the start of the next school year.

The contract as I mentioned is currently out to bid and the district will receive bids on January 10th.

The lowest bidder and bidder information will be provided by the school board at the at the action which is January 17th.

In addition the board this board motion would also authorize the district to be able to execute a change order up to an additional amount of not to exceed 500000 to address any additional capacity needs for the 2018 school year.

This allows purchasing up to approximately eight additional portables no later than April 5th.

2018 on a competitive unit price bid and that's part of the bid that's currently out.

The exact number and locations of portables will be adjusted this spring based on open enrollment and program placement data.

This board motion allows the change order you know for 500000 allows flexibility to accommodate these enrollment adjustments.

Director Mack you had questions.

Mack Thank you so much.

11 portables plus another eight in this one and then we have another bar coming forward too.

I wonder if Dr. Herndon or if you have this data can actually help us explain on that high school level.

I'm curious Curious about elementary and middle school capacity challenges for next year but in particular with our high school challenges.

I think we're looking on the order of magnitude of 400 students over at Roosevelt Ballard and Garfield and challenges with actually placing these portables and so if we could get.

some more information about what schools are we looking likely looking at how many over they are and what our mitigation factors will be.

Sure.

The purchasing of the portables and the next motion that we'll be talking about which is moving existing portables.

is really for secondary schools.

As you know Lincoln High School is opening up in 2019. These portables would be placed mostly at high schools Garfield Ballard Roosevelt Madison a couple of middle schools Madison and Mercer.

As we move forward with open enrollment that the numbers we have could change.

So the purchases for the portables and the moving of the existing portables is mostly for secondary secondary schools.

Thank you for that.

Madison and Mercer are also over capacity and expected to need portables next year.

And is Washington under at this point.

Correct.

Since Meany's open Washington has plenty of space in their building currently.

So we have an imbalance.

For now.

Yes.

For next year.

Yes.

And then the portables at Roosevelt.

Where might they actually go and what might that mean?

So that's a challenge both for most of the high schools that were highlighted.

We are still looking at that.

So we have some.

extenuating impacts of trying to locate that many portables.

Quite honestly I don't think we're going to end up with that many portables at each one of those high schools.

I just don't think it's quite feasible to do that.

So we're still in that analysis of what else we can do.

We'll be working with the capital department as well as the principals of each of those buildings to figure out what some viable options are.

I've seen a couple of possibilities and those impacts are pretty dire.

And I don't think that's where we want to be.

So we have to make sure we're in compliance with our codes.

We have to make sure that we're still able to serve all our students and we want to make sure that we're not cutting off ability for community use either.

And those are all possibilities that we have to take a look at.

follow up question.

Yes thank you.

So I appreciate that.

Also I don't have the numbers specifically in front of me but I feel like Ballard Roosevelt's And Garfield are all about 400 students over in their projections for next year.

And probably.

Yeah.

And we have to take a look at what they currently have.

So that's what we'll be taking a look at.

We're refining those numbers for next year and then clearly the open enrollment process will give us more information.

And this is again a bar that would give a maximum ceiling.

So we're hoping that hopefully we don't have to buy that many portables and we'll come in under for that.

So so my follow up question and comment actually is that since we know we have this capacity challenge of these schools and that we may not have real options for placing portables at their schools.

And we may have some other assignment rule.

Changes that we could make in the short term.

To potentially mitigate.

The capacity challenges for example.

Ingram may have more spaces and so.

If potentially we.

Instead of capping the waitlist and you know limiting the number of students that can come in that want to come in or.

center school or I mean there's there's just a number of potential assignment rules that we may want to look at that would support relieving capacity at some of these schools.

Because we may not be able to place portables where they're needed and that's going to be a problem next year.

So I'm making the comment and the question is to how do we get that on the agenda before open enrollment.

And maybe that needs to come because a student assignment plan didn't pass these items mitigation possible assignment rule changes are not on the student assignment plan.

They weren't there.

We're realizing this now.

Practice not policy don't you know.

So I'm wondering if we should potentially add some potential ideas for student assignment plan.

Changes that could help mitigate to our ops meeting and have that conversation.

Potentially to get passed through before open enrollment since we're looking down the barrel of major capacity challenges next year.

Even going through that I don't think we would have the ability to get something on an agenda and pass before open enrollment.

So but we have the time frame after enrollment happens on the assignment pieces the enrollment pieces are still the same way.

It's how we move that those capacity challenges in there.

So we still have time to do that.

So there are methods that we can use to continue to address that.

I excuse me.

Yes I feel the need to step in.

Wait lists are practice not policy.

So why can't we move all the wait lists at Ingram to give relief from Ballard and Roosevelt and their need for additional portables that we're going to need to put in the middle of the darn street.

Right so again that's one of the pieces we would look at depending on open enrollment.

Open enrollment period would allow us to initially assign the students and then we would see what the waitlist possibilities look at for there.

And yes it's balancing out what those impacts are going to be during that time frame.

So that's why we're building in enough time here to be able to figure out what are the other levers we can pull that will help alleviate some of that overcrowding.

I have two more questions and maybe one will be yours.

When are we going to be out of BTA III funds?

That was a long time ago.

It was.

That fund is quickly diminishing.

We're we're almost to the end of that funding as any sort of source for future projects.

So it's winding down.

OK.

And then you talked about community use on portables.

What did you mean by that?

So we're currently looking at one possible scenario where if we eliminate additional parking field access would not be allowable to anybody outside of school use.

Because there wouldn't be the parking requirement to meet that field use.

So that's one of the code implications that we have to take a look at.

OK and then my last my last question or comment is how do we balance the fact that we turned away Mr. Kroll the CIO asking for a blank check for five hundred thousand dollars.

And I appreciate that you all need lead time and flexibility but there's half a million dollars a lot of money and folks expect us to be very diligent.

So how do we make that work for us.

Well essentially you're basically approving a budget that's at that maximum of plus eight.

So it just you're basically saying here's what it's going to be used for.

You know the only piece it's going to be used for is for portables.

So there's no other direction that that money can be used for.

It's going to be used for capacity management in some way shape or form.

So And you can only go so far with that kind of money.

Did you still have questions director Mack comments concerns.

I think it's more of a comment or a question is just that I think that.

The student assignment plan and the space available question that is still something we need to work through in terms of how that's set and waitlist and when they move is actually part of the student assignment plan.

And I just like to sit down and have a comprehensive not maybe not comprehensive but I'd like to have a better understanding of the numbers of different mechanisms that are being thought of and have those be maybe made more transparent and discussed through the ops committee or some other mechanism so we can.

You and I can certainly start that conversation and we can figure out how to bring the rest of the rest of the board up to speed.

Excellent.

Thank you.

And the public.

Absolutely.

Yes.

Other comments questions or concerns.

Seeing none moving on number 16 BTA 3 and BTA 4 award contract K 1 3 0 4 to relocate and set up portable classrooms at multiple school sites projects.

Approval of this item would authorize the superintendent to enter into a contract to relocate and set up portable classrooms at multiple sites to support the district's 2018 19 annual short term capacity management action plan.

Ops.

This item was moved forward for consideration from December 7th.

This motion is pretty similar to the previous one.

The previous one was purchasing new portables.

This this contract contract K 13 0 4 is to to hire a contractor for relocating and set up setting up 15 existing portable classrooms that would support the 2018 19 capacity management action plan.

and provides portable classrooms to multiple schools for the upcoming school year.

It's the schools that I previously mentioned most of them being secondary schools.

This motion is coming to the board early.

due to the lead time needed to procure the contract.

You'll see blanks in this contract also.

Contract is currently out to bid and the district will receive bids on January 10th.

The lowest bidder and bidder information will be provided to the school board for the board action on January 17th.

Are there any questions?

Comments questions concerns.

OK.

What I want to know is a heads up when you're moving these things because I think it would be very cool to watch it.

I've seen some videos like a West Seattle blog when they moved it up and down the hills.

It's very cool.

And and would like a heads up please.

A field trip.

We certainly do.

There may be permit restrictions they may actually move like at three in the morning.

But we'll certainly give you a heads up.

Thank you.

OK.

We are at 7 excuse me. 17 BTA IV approval of the site specific educational specifications for the Ingram High School classroom addition project.

Approval of this item would provide the design teams with information about the program space required to support the education program of Ingram High School.

Ops please.

This item was moved for approval from the December 7th meeting.

Good evening board members Eric Becker senior project manager with Capital Projects.

I'm here for the site specific educational specifications for the addition to Ingram high school.

This and I'll just mention it again that this does provide the guidelines for the design teams with information about space requirements and to support the educational program for the Ingram high school addition.

The site specific educational specifications have adopted the district wide educational specifications or to fit the specific purpose of the project which is to increase the capacity of Ingraham high school by 500 students.

Further they have been tailored to to in response to input from the Ingraham high school design advisory team as SDAT.

We're familiar with that term which included staff parents and community members.

In this document there also was an attached memorandum and I just thought I'd mention that memorandum and has quite a bit of information about the program itself.

The makeup of the program and how the educational specifications were adopted to this edition.

Are there any questions?

comments or concerns questions part of my job.

I'm going to channel director Burke and I'm going to ask what CTE considerations were given for this.

Well I believe with the program if I'm going to answer that correctly is the the initial planning of this project was for capacity for 20 classrooms of capacity additional capacity 500 students.

But the go ahead.

So in this particular addition there.

are science classrooms included in this but Ingram has some CTE spaces already not skill center but they have things that other high schools might not.

They do have an auto shop so they do have some shop spaces and they're of the older model.

So it's an older building with a few recent additions but it doesn't have this particular addition wasn't contemplating Like an additional CTE spaces other than the science classrooms and science labs that they were looking at adding to bring them up to the 24 credit specification.

So we want to make sure there are enough science classrooms included.

Harris.

OK.

Other comments questions concerns.

That's a wrap sports fans.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And this meeting is adjourned at 925.

Thanks for watching.