School Board Meeting Date 10212015 Pt. 2

All right, so let's go ahead and start with our action items.

The first item is the authorization to draft the superintendent's annual evaluation and commence salary and contract extension discussion.

This is coming out of the executive committee.

It is for intro and action.

Do you have it?

You can always open it up.

You want me to open it up?

Bear with us one moment, we're short some paper up here.

I have it if you wanted to.

I have it open if you want it.

Just kidding, we thought we were ready to go.

Do you want to read it?

It's long, okay

I move that the school board authorize President Karr with the assistance of Director Peters to one, write, sign, and deliver a 2015 annual superintendent evaluation after getting input from all board members and the superintendent.

Two, engage in salary negotiations discussions with Superintendent Nyland for the 2015-16 fiscal year.

Three, engage in contract extension discussions with Superintendent Nyland.

And four, make a recommendation to the full board on the topic of a salary increase and a contract extension for the superintendent with an introduction to the full board at the November 4, 2015 meeting and action at the November 18, 2015 meeting.

Immediate action is in the best interest of the district.

I second the motion.

All right and so with that why don't we look to John Cerqui to speak to the BAR.

Good evening, John Cerqui, Acting General Counsel.

The purpose for this BAR is to have some delegation to some board members to write an annual evaluation for Dr. Nyland and to start negotiations with respect to extension of a contract and possible salary increases.

Previously the salary discussions when Dr. Nyland was hired was delegated to Director Carr, the board president.

Because for three board members are leaving and there's one that's in a contested race and there's three that are continuing, the board at the last executive committee requested that one of the three members that are up for election in 2017 participate in the salary discussion negotiations and to assist in the writing of the evaluation with President Carr.

So we kind of put names behind our back or drew straws and Director Peters was selected.

All three were interested in participating in that process.

So the purpose of this BAR is to get authorization for those two individuals, President Carr and Board Director Peters to write, sign and deliver an annual evaluation.

That's obviously after consulting with all the board members and getting input and data from the staff.

That will be forthcoming over the next few weeks.

but we want to have something that can be drafted and signed and delivered to Dr. Nyland with some fidelity.

It's also to start salary discussions and negotiations as part of the normal process is to look at whether we're going to roll over the contract every year for a sitting superintendent.

So to see whether Dr. Nyland has that interest, whether the board has that interest to discuss that process.

It's also fairly standard and it's required in the contract that you assess whether you'll grant a salary increase and that must be done by the first board meeting in December.

So it also allows you to start collecting data, reviewing comparisons about what non-represented staff got, what the teachers received as a salary COLA increase.

what other existing superintendents are receiving as well as other national superintendent parameters.

Those decisions would come back to the full board for introduction and action.

That is the salary extension in any contract extension.

Those would come before the board for introduction and action.

So this is just delegating the inquiry process to the two board members that I've noted.

And this was brought before the executive committee last week for submittal to the board for introduction and action tonight.

Thank you.

Alright so with that again this is for intro and action.

So what questions do directors have?

Director Peasley.

So in the interest of transparency can you please explain exactly how the decisions are made around the contract and the evaluation?

So with respect to the evaluation there are this year eight domains and criteria that Dr. Nyland will be evaluated on and then the board has a ninth domain that it will get input and feedback and data on to then draft an evaluation.

Director Carr and Director Pease will get individual feedback from all the board members either through an executive session to hear how he's performing, how you want to rate him based on the criteria.

It's also a four level standard evaluation so it's not just satisfactory, unsatisfactory, there's proficient, there's basic, there's unsatisfactory.

So there is a different standard that we are using based on the state level evaluation that was put forth for school districts to use for the superintendent.

So the evaluation will be based on the input from all of you with data from staff on how we think we have done in supporting the superintendent in achieving his goals.

With respect to the salary, that will be an initial conversation with Director Carr and Director Peters on does Dr. Nyland want to continue past June of 2017 and if so is it a one year extension?

This extension can only be three years under state law so we can't grant him a five year contract but historically we have extended the contracts on an annual basis kind of a rolling contract for our superintendents.

And that will also be with getting input from you in an executive session as to your thoughts and ideas on a contract extension.

Other questions or comments?

Okay so did you raise your hand Director Patu?

Okay.

I saw something out of the corner of my eye.

Probably the reason not a lot of questions we talked this for a fair bit last week at our executive committee of the whole and I think a lot of the questions got answered at that point in time so I'll look around and say last call.

All right same comment I made last week which is to compliment our president on being open to having a process for including some of the directors who for sure will be here after December.

I think that is a very collaborative way of working these decisions so thank you.

Thank you.

The only comment I'd make, and I apologize, John, if I repeat what you have already said.

For years and years, we did this process where we refreshed the contract of the superintendent in June.

And a couple of years back, and this goes to the question that somebody made in public testimony or comment, a couple of years back, the thought was that if we moved it to November, we could sync it up with the timing of the data that comes out in terms of the district performance.

And so that linkage between the performance sorry, the state of the district, etc., that that made a logical time to sync up and do all of that at the same time.

And then if a superintendent or a board wanted to part ways, then it also logically linked right into the next cycle for hiring, which starts basically in December and both parties would have the best opportunity to find a new situation that was mutually, that was agreeable to their individual parties.

That was the thinking around changing the timing.

Obviously, we discussed and recognized that the situation that we're in, where you're right on the brink of some significant board turnover, was a risk that we weighed and a decision that we made at that time.

So, we'll leave it to future boards to weigh in on whether they think that works or not, but that's the timeline that we had outlined and that we've been working to.

Director Peaslee.

I just want to add one point to that.

The other advantage that we identified when we were making this change is that the sitting board would have the opportunity to evaluate the superintendent having worked with him throughout him or her.

throughout the past year whereas if it were a new board they would only be evaluating a superintendent that they had been working with for a relatively short period of time if in fact we were evaluating them in June rather than November.

So, even though incoming board directors can make the point that we are signing a contract that they are not party to, the fact is we are also completing an evaluation cycle at a time that makes a lot more sense than it did in June.

All right I'm not seeing any other questions or comments so with that if we could Ms. Fote please call the roll.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Martin-Morris.

Aye.

Director McLaren.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Peasley.

Aye.

Director Karr.

Aye.

This motion is passed unanimously.

All right thank you very much.

All right that brings us we skip item 2 I believe that was the item that we pulled off the agenda.

I'm looking around and I'm seeing head nods.

So let's go to item 3 which is the approval of resolution 2015-16-8 supporting the Supreme Court's orders in McCleary v. State of Washington from Executive Committee.

I move that the Board of Directors approve board resolution number 2015-16-8.

I second the motion.

All right and this was introduced previously at the last meeting.

I don't see any signal that there's been any change to the BAR.

I don't know if John Cerqui you have any additional comments to add or if you're just here for questions.

Just here for questions there's been no changes since introduction.

All right so I'll look to the directors questions or comments maybe start with questions if you've got them.

OK I'm not seeing questions so comments from directors.

Director McLaren.

So this is an excellent way for the school district and the board to show solidarity with the community in again repeating our commitment to keep pressing our legislature to fund the school district adequately.

No, more than adequately.

Amply.

And across the state.

Thank you.

I saw Director Blanford and then we will go to Director Martin-Morris.

In my two years serving on the board, probably the most disappointing aspect of being a board director is having to make difficult choices where you are privileging one group of people, one group of students.

the perception is hurting another group and that's driven more frequently than not by lack of funding and in this state which you know and particularly in this city which is such an educated group of folks and citizens it is it is beyond the pale to think that we are underfunding public education.

If we do believe that it is, as I do, that it is at the base of democracy, that democracy doesn't function well when we don't have a well-educated populace, then we need to figure out a way to get this to happen.

I believe that the McCleary decision helps us to get there.

I am not optimistic, as some might be, that that there's going to be a quick infusion of funds.

I think we only have to look to other states like New Jersey who have a similar ruling and it took years and years before they actually saw increased funding going into classrooms.

which I throw out there just to say that we need to redouble our efforts to advocate with legislators to insist that we adequately fund our education as is our constitutional responsibility and it's clearly articulated in our founding documents.

And so my hope is that all of those who are winners or losers in any of these conversations that we're having about allocations realize that the work is not done when the ruling comes down from the board, that they need to continue their advocacy and redouble it if necessary in the state legislature until we get relief that we all need

Director Peters.

I'm glad to have this opportunity to support this resolution because I think it's important for us as the largest school district in the state to use our voice to join the chorus to demand that our legislators fulfill their duty.

And I think that we should be doing this more often just a steady drumbeat of demands to our state.

so people can better understand the reality we're dealing with and so we can finally have some action.

I also want to point out two components to this resolution that are important.

Right at the end it says that including amply funding across the board we also are highlighting funding for regional compensation.

And also we are asking for levy reform that does no net harm to Seattle Public Schools.

That is also an important issue that is coming before us and I am glad that we are including this in our message.

Thank you.

All right so Director Martin Morris pointed out that I skipped him so we will go back.

So I also for the audience and for the community at large want to remind folks that this is actually not the first resolution that we've had around McCleary in fact last spring.

We also sent a resolution to the legislature when they were in session stating a lot of the same things that are in this one.

Although this resolution is a little bit more detailed than the first one was.

I have to be honest the passion for doing this work in Olympia just doesn't seem to be there right now.

I'm hoping these resolutions have an impact but I have to be honest and I don't believe they are having that but I would hope that folks in the community will kind of understand that and join us in communicating directly with their legislators to say enough is enough.

Sit down and get your work done, the work that the courts and everyone is telling you you should be doing.

Others?

I'll just add my own comments.

I did skip during my board comments that I had the opportunity, Director Martin-Morrison, I had the opportunity to visit the mayor yesterday I think it was.

And we had a brief discussion about our funding, the shortfalls, the McCleary case.

And his comments aligned with what we heard from Director Blanford is that, well, we need to continue to press.

We need to press hard.

I think that we need to be realistic that we won't see a miracle overnight.

It's going to be a slow and steady process.

But I think the critical piece, and I'm happy to support this resolution as a result of The result of it the key is that we've got to keep the heat on and we need to keep the messages flowing.

So I'm looking I thought I saw somebody make a signal it looks like no so with that let's go ahead and go to the vote please.

Director Martin-Morris.

Director McLaren.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Peasley.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Karr.

Aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

Thank you.

Alright we are to item 4 of 5 on the action items followed by 12 count them introduction items and this is the approval of the student assignment plan coming out of ops.

I move that the board approve the student assignment plan dated October 21, 2015 as attached to the board action report.

I second the motion.

I'm going to pause and acknowledge that I skipped the committee recommendations on those other two so I will capture at this time if we could hear from Director Patu on the recommendation from the ops committee on this item.

It was recommended by the committee to move this forward for full board approval.

Thank you.

All right and so this was introduced at the last meeting.

I don't see any indication of changes.

I don't know if you wanted to speak to anything that you wanted to call out please.

Sure so good evening everyone.

There is no change to the BAR but we did want to mention that based on our conversations from the introduction we would like to propose May 31 as a date in which we would dissolve the waitlist.

So putting a definitive date in there.

All right.

Could I ask you to state your name for the record please?

Sorry about that.

Ashley Davies the director of enrollment planning.

Thank you.

All right.

So with that director Peaslee.

So is the change to the waitlist something that we are voting on right now?

Is it a part of what we are voting on right now?

Yes so just to clarify the updates to the student assignment plan involve a few updates.

The first of which was streamlining the document as we mentioned in the introduction there are several documents that live on the school website around the transition plans, the annual transition plans and the initial student assignment plan so this document would be the end state and all reference to items that involved student assignment procedures for enrollment planning would be directed to that document.

Additionally, it removes all the program information.

That information changes yearly.

And that was one of the reasons why we were having to have multiple documents throughout the years to update that information.

Ultimately, we direct families and students to the website for the most up-to-date information around services and programs.

And given the nature of those changes, That's kind of the best way for families to have the most up-to-date information.

And then the last would be the date in which we dissolve the waitlist.

So where is that piece, the date at which we dissolve the waitlist?

I'm looking at what's attached to the bar and I'm looking at the waitlist section and I don't see any change there.

Yes, so that was what I was mentioning.

We didn't put in an actual date.

It just says the end of the wait list period.

But I'm bringing today to recommend May 31st as being that date.

Can I ask a follow-up to that?

And I'm sorry to jump in line in front of everybody else.

What does our current document say?

Does our current document declare a said date for a wait list?

Yes.

The current document states September 30 as the date in which the wait list ends.

So that date is listed in the current document.

So I asked the question badly, so let me be more clear.

In the student assignment plan document, Is that where it calls out the date September 30th?

The document that a parent looks at and can read and understand what the student assignment plan is, does it have a specific date in it today that calls out September 30th?

Yes.

So it lists a date for the end of the waitlist period, which is September 30th, in the way the document lives right now.

Okay.

So you're introducing a document that goes from a firm and clear date to a date that's not codified in the document.

And am I right?

Yes.

So I will just mention, so in the student assignment plan that exists right now, we also reference the open enrollment period.

And that period is not defined with a date.

It says the open enrollment period.

And all that information is available on the website as we identify exactly when that period is going to be.

So when we came up with these initial updates and changes, we didn't list a specific date under the assumption that we would have conversation about what would be the appropriate date that would still be before the start of the school year, that would allow families time to understand when the date was.

But we would make sure all that information was publicly available on the website.

Other questions or comments?

So let's go to Director Blanford and then to Director Patu.

I'm remembering the conversation about switching the waitlist, the end of the waitlist time.

And I'm wondering if you can share for our benefit and for the public's benefit, what was the analysis that led you to choose the end of May as the end of the wait period?

the end of May rather than another particular date.

We ultimately wanted a date that was going to be before the start of the school year in order to allow families time to prepare for the school year and school's time to prepare.

And so in thinking specifically about May 31st, during the summer, there's actually little wait list moves.

For part of the period during the summer, student enrollment is actually closed for system cleanup.

So during that time, wait list moves are not even being made.

So that time during the summer doesn't give us a lot of additional new information.

So we ultimately wanted to provide a time that would allow us enough time to make any staffing adjustments at the school level.

So by May 31st we've already had all that and this year we'll also be working to move some of that up, any adjustments that are made.

So that will give us even more time so that May 31st date gives us sufficient time after open enrollment, which is typically the end of February to the beginning of March.

We have a little bit of time to do some cleanup, do some analysis on the information that we get from all those choice applications, and then that provides us time to begin moving the wait list.

If we need to make any staffing adjustments, we can do that, and then we still have time to make wait list moves, and that brings us to May 31st.

I'll just ask one follow-up.

Did you identify any opportunity cost associated with moving to the May 31st end time?

opportunity cost specific for May 31st as opposed to I mean the one piece of feedback that we had received and you know I think it came up here last time was about what if shifts do happen during the summer if families don't tell us until the summer that they're leaving and seats become available.

What we've always done and what we will do even more closely this year is really customize how we're looking at seat availability at each school and understanding what are the patterns that we see because every school will have different patterns in terms of the families that they get during the summer, in the beginning of the school year, so understanding how many choice seats we'll be able to have available in order to make those wait list moves by May 31st, understanding any students who may leave during the summer based on trends that we have.

So I think this will also give us an opportunity to work more closely with schools around their particular student patterns.

to ensure that we can make waitlist moves earlier which is to the benefit of students, schools, families, but also ensuring that they'll have a sufficient school population despite the fact that we're making those moves earlier and then committing to not making a ton of additional moves later on during the year.

Okay Director Patu.

It's kind of for clarity, now you are going to, you're saying that you're dissolving the waitlist by May 30th.

May 31st, yes.

And so when you dissolve the waitlist, is there another waitlist?

I mean, obviously there'll be another group of names that will come out.

So originally you guys do it in September and you're now moving it to May.

So what happens to the next waitlist?

When is that going to be moved?

So that will be it there will be no other waitlist.

So that means that the waitlist originally where it was moved in September is no longer in existence because we are now going to May 31st.

Right.

And there is no more waitlist.

There is no more waitlist at that point.

Thank you.

Director Peasley.

So I'm sorry I just have to follow up on my earlier question.

That is not in what we are voting on tonight.

Am I correct?

Okay so you are just sort of informing us that staff has made this decision and this is not up to a school board vote.

No, so the 31st date would still be up to approving this particular update in the student assignment plan.

So let me try it and you can tell me if I don't have it right.

We're voting on this and we get to take everything into consideration that's being shared.

I think the central issue, there's two.

One, we have a practice that holds a wait list open all the way through the end of September.

We've seen evidence now for the last two years that's highly disruptive and contributes to the staffing reallocation.

So that's a piece of information.

The other piece of information or critical piece is that we are moving, if I understood your answer to my earlier question, from a document that clearly says the waitlist will run through September 30th to silence.

So I think that's something that we need to think about.

And so did I get it right?

So ultimately, I would say that with the approval of this updated plan and the date of May 31, we would like to put that date in here.

But it's not in there now.

But it's not in there now.

So is there a reason we can't amend it to include that in the document?

Yes, so we would do that.

Assuming you all agree on May 31st of that date, we would make the...

So I'm going to...

So we're going to have some other questions.

And if I could ask John Cerqui to add, you don't have to come this second if you want to think about it while a few others ask questions.

But I think you need to tell us, can we approve the document in silence on that point and have them add it after the fact?

I think that my understanding is it needs to read the way it's going to read unless we have something in the motion that says, oh, yeah, you can go back and change that later to this date.

So, can you think about that and then I'll go to these others and then we'll come back to you.

So, Director Martin-Morris.

What I would like to do is offer up an amendment to the plan stating that the date of May 31 be added to the plan as the date of when the waiting list is closed, cleared.

So can I ask a clarifying question before we go any further down that path?

Is it your intention with the May 31st date that it would always be May 31st or does it move around from year to year but wouldn't be any later than May 31st?

So the idea is that it would be May 31st.

If it was in this document it would have to be May 31st and if for any reason say you know next year we decide We would prefer to move it to June 30th.

We'd have to amend the document.

We'd have to change the document again.

And bring it back to the school board.

Yes.

All right.

So that would be in a subsequent year's proposed change.

Yes.

All right.

So before we go back, because you've had a couple turns.

I will just note that is one of the reasons why that open enrollment period isn't specifically laid out with a date, because it does fluctuate.

It's normally the same time every year, but the exact date changes.

OK.

You need a second.

So I'm sorry we're jumping around here and I'm doing that so you made a motion and you want it so can you restate it and then we'll see if we can get a second.

And Teresa tell me if I'm not doing this right.

I would like to propose an amendment.

that the May 31 date be added to the plan as the date for closing and clearing the waiting list on an annual basis.

Second.

Alright so Theresa correct me if I don't do this right so now we have an amended motion on the table.

It's been seconded so I want to open it up to discussion on that particular item.

So we'll go, actually let's go to Director Peters because she's been waiting patiently and then to Director McLaren and then I'll come back to you.

First of all I want to say I'm glad that we're doing this with an amendment because otherwise it was just a verbal agreement and it wasn't going to be clear you know what we had agreed to.

Now I have a couple questions about how May 31 was chosen because what I'm envisioning is a scenario like this year where things do happen over the summer.

Maybe the waitlist doesn't move but we suddenly find out that 675 kids aren't showing up.

And I can envision families saying wait a minute they didn't show up so why didn't you move the waitlist so my kid can get into that program.

So, can you give us a little bit of background on how you chose May 31st and why you think nothing will happen over the summer that would make us want to move the waitlist a little bit later in the summer?

Sure.

So I would first say I wouldn't say that nothing will happen during the summer.

We typically will have students who leave and both come during the summer.

Specifically to the number around that 675, around students who have left the district, I think one thing that we've really begun to think about in terms of the date in which we dissolve the wait list There's a lot of time that families are sitting not knowing where they potentially would ideally like to go to school.

So if we're holding wait lists for that long, families may opt to make other choices outside the district, other where, because they're on a wait list to a choice that they desire more than the choice that they're guaranteed currently.

So if we can give families a little bit more assurance earlier on, and with moving and dissolving the wait list by May 31st, we'd be committing to doing that, to providing families an understanding of where they're going much earlier.

than they have now so that they can plan for that.

So I will say that students will come and go during the summer.

It will always happen, but to the point I mentioned earlier about us working specifically with every school, trying to understand what their trends are, because every school has a different trend in terms of the student population that they see maybe leaving or coming.

during the summer and in the beginning of school, we'll try to identify what's kind of that right size that we will leave available for new attendance area students who will come in and how many choice seats that we can make available depending on those specific patterns.

So I'm saying We can't assure that changes will happen during the summer, but this will provide a little bit more stability and predictability in the way we're doing things, both on our end and for schools and families.

And so since we haven't really had a long discussion about this can we assume that staff including yourself and Dr. Herndon have looked at this very closely and May 31 is not an arbitrary choice that it's based on some research you've done, maybe some benchmarking with other districts.

I mean have you looked at what other districts do?

Yes and I mean for the most part you know as was mentioned most other districts do dissolve that wait list prior to the start of school and I mean by the end of that current school year more specifically.

Oh okay.

Yeah so you know I think again May 31st gives us a good time period in which we can provide families enough information about their plans for the next school year while also providing us enough time to make any staffing adjustments and see any additional trends that would be happening up until that point.

Okay and then I just want to ask one other question.

You had mentioned on a slightly different note that this proposal you are bringing to us today removes program information.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by that please?

Yes, so specifically we previously in the student assignment plan had information on the ELL service models and programming such like that.

There was information about transportation.

It was all very limited though.

It all pretty much said and directed families to that particular program or services portion on either the school website or that particular department for further information.

The current plan that we have, the annual transition plan for 13-14, has information in it about ELL programming that's no longer relevant because we're having that service provided in all schools.

That's specifically why we wanted to take some of that information out.

because it just changed so quickly and those program offices have the most accurate information and can capture that information in the best way to communicate to families.

Okay, thank you.

Director McLaren.

So I have to say I'm pretty uncomfortable with this.

As far as I can see, and I recognize Dr. Herndon isn't present.

And so he could possibly give us better contact.

I'm not insulting you.

But he has been here.

And so at any rate, my sense is this is a pretty big change.

and it's not documented in the proposal or the plan and I'm reluctant to approve an amendment that makes such a dramatic change in the student assignment plan without any prior notice.

I know that we did talk about it.

I was present in some committee meeting where we talked about it, but I don't feel that the public has had any notice of this.

So I will just say we did speak we did mention that we were anticipating a date in the spring in which you would dissolve the waitlist in all the meetings that in the community means that we've had and even in you know the last meeting when we introduced this we didn't you're right we didn't give a specific date and I do welcome and want to hear feedback on that specific date but I will just mention that we did reference dissolving it in the spring in other communications we've had.

Okay let's go back to Director Peasley.

So the normal process is that these changes would have been discussed in a committee, the operations committee and we would have received a redlined version of the student assignment plan with the changes in them and I'm not opposed to the changes or the date.

I do have a question about the date but this is the very first time I'm hearing about the program language being removed from the student assignment plan and there's been no discussion that I'm aware of in any committee Or by the board and this puts us in a position where we have to vote on something that hasn't been discussed.

We don't really, there's no vetting and to me this is very, makes it, I mean I'm just wondering if we can't delay the item.

So let's go to Director Patu and then to Director Martin-Morris.

I kind of tagging behind what Director Peasley is that this was never brought up to us when you have brought it firsthand into the operations committee and it would have been great if this was brought up because this is a very vital and a very important part of what's happening with the assignment plan and I kind of feel uncomfortable also voting on something that has not been vetted and it hasn't gone out to the community.

They have not been able to be able to put in inputs and no transparency.

And I'm very uncomfortable that we have not been able to do that.

And I would hate to vote on something that has not been out there in the community for the community actually to bring in their comments or whether this is gonna be workable for everyone.

All right, let's go to Director Martin-Morse.

I'm gonna have to challenge that a little bit this had this did specifically come up in the committee meeting We did talk about this Specifically about doing this and I believe it was the commit wasn't that the committee of the whole that we had for ops I'm seeing other heads where we did this so we had a meeting a committee of the whole meeting of operations and and we talked about this very topic at that meeting.

Which very topic?

About removing the programs and about moving the date up into the spring before school ending.

Yeah, we sat right down here and did that.

All right.

And I will just also mention in terms of the information about the updated student assignment plan and the programs changing, all that information we did also provide in the PowerPoint that came to the Ops Committee and the introduction that we had previously.

And then specifically about the date itself, I know that we didn't state a specific date, so I do appreciate that feedback around the concern about just hearing that date now.

And I think that's helpful information for me to understand your thoughts on the way this should have happened.

But I, again, just do want to let you know that we did mention to the community that we were thinking about a spring date in which we would dissolve the wait list.

Director Blanford.

So listening to this entire conversation I'm wondering if you can tell us if there is anything to be lost from delaying a decision on this until our next board meeting where I would imagine that you can come back to us with a red line document that clearly articulates the May 31 date embedded in the document so that there's time for comment from folks.

It seems like that would accommodate everyone's need for transparency.

But there's a question embedded in that.

Do we lose anything from delaying it for a while?

Delaying it to the November 4th meeting, you suggested?

I mean, we ultimately want to have these changes so that we can communicate them to schools and families as early as possible.

I think delaying till the 4th wouldn't set us back that much if that would make everyone feel more comfortable.

about those changes and if there were additional comments and questions that people wanted to relay to me or the rest of my team, we're more than happy to go through any of those between now and then.

I think just ultimately we want to make sure that we have these changes approved in time for us to make those communications really clear to schools and families.

So I wanted to weigh in because I haven't had an opportunity to yet.

It seems to me, based on past experience, we've introduced these the first November meeting, passed them the second November meeting, so unless something's fundamentally changed in the timeline, to wait one meeting I think is not harmful if there's someone on staff that can tell me differently then I would be open to that but it seems like a reasonable recommendation to consider I don't even want to use the right term I don't want to use this term because I don't know what the right one is but to wait and you'll have to advise on the technical if it's tabling or whatever but we I do think we need to give the opportunity to be clear what we're proposing here.

I think it needs to be in the document.

It needs to be either through an amendment or directly written into the motion what we're doing on this so that it's crystal clear.

I will say, however, that don't think for a minute you haven't gotten some public input on this matter because we all got about 800 or 900 emails resulting from staffing reallocation.

and this is one of the primary root causes.

So if you decide to take a pass and wait a year to address it please be prepared as a result for eight or nine hundred emails next September from equally unhappy families.

And so with that let's go to Stephan and then to Director Blanford and then to Director

So I don't know if it's appropriate but I would make a motion to table the original motion.

Okay so I need to ask a technical question of Teresa Hale.

We had a motion for an amendment in a second.

Do we need to?

Okay we'll see if you'll rescind.

I will withdraw my motion to amend.

Alright thank you.

All right, so we have a motion to delay one meeting to November 4.

I second.

Everybody's grabbing for the microphone.

Do you have something to say?

Yes, I do.

First of all, when you come back with this, in addition to the date when you want the waitlist dissolved, please include some comment on removal of programs because that's also information that isn't in here that should be in here and that should be Redlined in red so we know it's new.

Any changes to the document should be in a different color so we know they are new.

I would also like you to ask to explain what will happen in September when there are vacancies in schools and we have no waitlist.

How will it be determined who fills those seats?

And if you can speak to that right now I would appreciate that.

If you can't.

At least if you could just include that in the bar and be able to address that at the next meeting I would appreciate that.

But I think the public would very much like to know that.

So do you understand what I'm getting at there?

Yes.

Okay.

Alright so let's include a response to that when there's like a Friday report or something and then make it clear to the public what the answer to that question is.

Okay so we're at 735. We have a motion to delay.

It's been seconded.

And so is there any reason we can't go take a vote on that at this point?

All right nobody is objecting.

So with that Ms. Fotey could we please have the roll?

Director McLaren.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Peasley.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Martin-Morris.

Aye.

Director Karr.

Aye.

This motion is passed unanimously.

All right I just wanted to say thank you you held up well under our questioning and so your works appreciated.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right.

All right.

We are to action item number five, which is the approval of King County and Seattle Public Schools agreement for the purchase of Orca Business Passport products or metro transportation.

And this is coming out of Ops.

So if we could have the motion read and then seconded please.

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute a contract with King County for $2,978,256.68 accepting the proposed 2015-2016 school year fee structure in the form of the agreement attached and presented to the school board with any minor additions, deletions, and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the contract.

I second the motion.

All right and if we could hear from our ops committee chair please.

This is recommended by the committee to move forward for full board approval.

Thank you.

I don't see any markups indicated and I see Pegi McEvoy shaking her head that there has been no changes since introduction.

So are there questions or comments on this item?

I'm hearing none so I think we will go ahead and go straight to the vote then please if we could have a roll call Ms. Foley.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Peasley.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Martin-Morris.

Aye.

Director McLaren.

Aye.

Director Karr.

Aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

Thank you.

All right we have now reached the introduction items and I'm going to offer if directors need a break just kind of take some rolling breaks here.

But please don't leave us up here with less than four at any point in time.

And so let's move on to introduction item 1 of 12. And that is the approval of transportation service standards and revised bell times for school year 16-17 at long last.

And this is coming out of Ops.

So let's hear the introduction of it and then we'll go to the committee chair.

Thank you, Peggy McEvoy, Assistant Superintendent for Operations.

Before you we have the annual transportation service standards and what we'd like to go through is changes to that document as well as to discuss the process related to the bell time analysis.

We have a slide deck that we want to show you.

It's 20 slides.

We're going to move through the first of them quite rapidly because this is information that we have discussed in previous work sessions but we wanted to make sure that we were putting a comprehensive document forward.

So the transportation service standards are an annual document that we bring forward that talk about eligibility, bus stops, ride times, space available, rides, homelessness, safe routes for schools, and tier times.

We want to make sure that we're highlighting any changes of the document since you actually approved it last year.

There are three minor changes that we want to highlight.

We added an appeals process.

This was a process that we actually had in our administrative procedures, but we wanted to make sure that we were daylighting this and putting it in the transportation standards so you knew what we were doing and how we were handling the appeals process.

Additionally, because Hazel Wolf is moving back to their permanent site, We are no longer going to be providing that interim transportation to the Marshall site.

So in the appendix we will be sunsetting that.

You remember that when the board voted on that at the last transportation standards that was because we had capital funding that would provide that.

So that's being sunsetted.

And then we have some just formatting changes.

No substantive changes but we've cleaned up the document a little bit.

So that's the transportation standards but you also know that of course we add the bell times to that and there is a schedule in there so we want to go through that because we do not consider that a minor change.

That is a major change so we're going to spend a little time.

walking you through that.

This is the timeline that we've been using since last year to talk about how we were going to be doing the community engagement and what that would look like.

You will see that we have added some boxes since our August meeting with you and we've now started talking about the three phases of our work with community engagement.

Phase one was the longer piece of work which we're answering the question should we even change bell times.

Once we answered that, phase two was what should it look like and we went over community engagement related to that and we've now moved into phase three which is really the legislative process where the superintendent's final recommendation comes in front of the board so that we can have some conversations about that.

Next slide please.

So phase one, the purpose again was just to determine should we actually make this change.

It's a huge heavy list for the district.

We weren't sure that everybody was agreeing that this was something that we needed to do in order to have that conversation with the community.

We provided three options.

These were options that were developed with the help of our task force.

They included a no change option, a modified flip option, or should we extend the high school day and leave the schedules as they are.

Next slide please.

In phase one of the community engagement we had six initiatives.

The bell time analysis task force which was a 30 member community group that met for over a half a year to look at this in depth.

Neighbor to Neighbor which was our new outreach that was led by Bernardo Ruiz and Jesse Johnson and that was where we developed the videotape.

We trained community partners to actually use this so that they could go to their communities and host conversations related to that.

We had community meetings using the neighbor to neighbor tool.

We had bell time online surveys, student climate surveys where we gathered information from students and then we had our ongoing email address arrival times inbox.

Through that process we got 29,000 responses And this was from families, district staff, students and community members and the result of that was yes we should consider flipping bell times.

So that was the end of phase one.

The key findings were that yes we should flip but we've got some concerns.

We're worried about after school childcare, student employment, extracurricular, including our athletics.

We also wanted to make sure that we were doing an equity analysis so Bernardo's team helped us make sure that we were using the toolkit in order to do that analysis.

We looked at all sources of our public engagement and one of the things that we saw was that we had certain underrepresented groups who were very concerned about child care and the sequencing of where their students might be, the older students with the younger students.

So as we looked at that disaggregated data we put together a phase two recommendation thinking that we were responding to the community.

In phase two it was the first time that we gave the community a first look at what that might look like so that we could go out and get some more engagement.

So phase two the planning assumptions were that yes we would flip, that we would provide a detailed draft of what that would look like for each individual school.

We wanted to make sure that it met the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations of start times for adolescents after.

830 a.m.

and when we met with the board you wanted us to make sure that it was cost neutral and that we were trying to address the equity concerns that were raised in phase one of the conversation.

So we're now into phase two of the timeline.

That's the big box there in the center.

I want to highlight that we also were very intentional about getting feedback from our principals, from our PTAs, and from our community-based organizations.

So we did direct reach-outs to all of them in order to make sure that we got that information.

So, we have six initiatives during phase two, the principal feedback, more community meetings, we had five community meetings, we had district leadership feedback, we did the outreach to the CBOs, specifically through our partnerships groups where we did a direct email to them, although I will have to say that many of them attended our community meetings also in order to give information in that way.

We also had PTAs that asked for a way to survey their families so we created a survey specifically for them.

We translated it into the languages that they requested so that they could go out and in fact 14 PTAs actively used that tool and got feedback.

So you will see that during phase 2 we got responses from over 2,000 people, 14 PTAs.

We only got responses from two of our CBOs.

I will say though that the CBOs that responded to us were very active ones.

Also the public health department which really represented all of the school-based health centers that are in our schools and wanted to make sure that they were also representing their conversations with them.

So key findings there was that they actually wanted us to revisit how we were doing our schedule.

They wanted us to move Title I schools into the earlier tiers and that was a shift from what we had originally proposed.

So that was what we were going to take into our final recommendation.

The reason for that was they felt like Title I programs needed to be early in the morning because it's those after school and tutoring programs that really are accelerating the learning for our underserved populations.

So they wanted to make sure that those programs stayed intact and that they continue to be viable.

We also wanted to make sure that we were putting our middle schools, we had originally placed them in tier 3. The recommendation was to move them into an earlier tier, tier 2. And then there was questions about changes to the tiers for tier 3 because we actually, in the way that we were sorting some of this, moved some of our elementary schools into tier 3 where they hadn't been before.

And so we got some feedback that that wasn't necessarily the direction that they wanted us to go.

So along with all of this work that we were doing with the community engagement, there's also a separate process that has been going along and that is our SEPA process.

Anytime you make a large program change, you have to go through a programmatic analysis.

So we have a contractor that we're working with in order to do that.

That process began on May 19th and it is continuing.

Because we have just given them the final recommendation from the superintendent They are going back and doing the final analysis.

You will see that report and Recommendation prior to the vote, but it probably won't be available until next week So we went to the operations a committee the whole and presented this information to you and gained some feedback and Thank you.

And so we wanted to make sure that we do like the phase 3 planning assumptions which really are the basis for the superintendent's final recommendations.

First of all it is to continue to meet the recommendations for the 830 start time.

We have continued to keep all the high schools and middle schools meeting that standard with the exception of Denny Middle School.

As you know, Self and Denny share a site and according to that their MUP, their master use permit, they are not allowed to have the same arrival times.

So we let Denny make the choice, did you want to go into tier 3 or did you want to go into tier 1?

We're very excited about being able to stay in tier one.

Let me just put it that way.

When we were at the Southwest community meeting they were very verbal about wanting to stay in the earlier tier.

They have a lot of title programming and they really felt like they were on the right track.

They are closing the opportunity gap and they wanted to remain where they are.

So, we also wanted to respond to phase 2 feedback by prioritizing all of our title 1 programs to earlier tiers as an equity consideration.

When we talked with our title 1 schools, we did have one school that requested to stay in tier 3. and that was Gadsden and their rationale for that is that they have a very strong relationship with Seattle University and Team Read and their students from Seattle U and the neighboring schools would not be available so they wanted to stay in tier 3. So we have allowed them to do that.

But in the meantime we are trying to maximize the number of schools in tier 1 and tier 2. We wanted to move the rest of the middle schools into tier 2. We continue to provide a cost neutral option for the board to consider and we also as we were looking at this we wanted to make sure that we were keeping neighborhoods together.

One of the things that we did here was that when you only have one school in a community that has a later arrival time and all the rest have earlier that it makes that after school programming challenging for the families and for the community.

So wherever possible we try to do that.

We weren't 100% successful but we did strive to be able to do that.

Next slide please.

So what you see here is the bell time analysis for our elementary age students.

So when we're talking about that, that's for our elementary schools and for the K-8s that are serving our elementary students.

And you can see this is the service area and the number of schools within each of their service areas.

So if you looked at Aki Kurose, we put all seven of their elementary schools into tier one.

That includes, that asterisk is their K-8 school.

If you look at Whitman, which is in the very end, they have a total of 10 schools in their service area.

Six of them are in tier one with one of their K-8s, which is Bravier Thompson.

They asked to be in tier one.

We have one school in tier two, that is their K-8, another K-8 within Whitman, which is I have to go back.

I can't remember which one that is.

And then tier three, there's three.

So I'll go back and check that one.

Next slide, please.

And we wanted to make sure that we were giving you a regional representation of what that looks like, because we wanted to make sure we weren't negatively impacting any one of our communities.

You can see that most of our title schools, or a lot of our title schools, are in the southeast region.

And therefore, you'll see that more of our tier one schools are in that region.

So for instance, in the Aki Kurose service area seven out of the seven schools or 100% are in the first tier.

So there's pros and cons to this.

We know that we're meeting the AAP recommendations with that one exception we talked about.

We have prioritized the Title I schools.

We've maximized the number of schools in Tiers 1 and 2. We were also able to with this process move preschool and that's our special ed preschools as well as our Head Start.

that we have into tier two.

Those are very small programs and there's a benefit to that because our elementary principals have said that when Head Start actually starts before their elementary school opens, there's always been a security issue because there's very few of them there.

How did they let them in?

How did they provide security?

So they were very pleased and Head Start was very pleased to be able to make this change and it remains cost neutral.

I think the downside is that we still have 10 elementary schools in tier 3 and 3 of our K-8's and we know that.

That has not made everybody happy although we have had some schools requesting tier 3. It also places a lot of our team read schools into tier one and you know team read is a program that is supported through our teenagers and they go into the elementary schools to help read and so in talking with Michael Tolley and he is working with team read to see how that we can mitigate all that and continue to keep that program very viable.

I would also add that we have stacked these tiers very tightly so that we could do this.

Which means that when parents ask for an additional bus stop on a route we are just not going to have the flexibility to be able to do that in the future.

We know that traffic has gotten more and more challenging.

We have all been stuck in it and so that is something that we will have to pay attention to as we move forward.

And then finally I wanted to do a comparison for you of where we were during the phase two and that's in the dark gray as far as numbers and all the different tiers.

We've graded out because we're no longer considering it but I wanted you to see where we were before and where we are now.

So if you look at the very bottom three rows where it talks about all schools.

In tier 1, we used to have 21 schools in tier 1 for this year.

Our proposal is to move 53 of our schools into tier 1. In tier 2, we are currently at 43. We are talking about having 31. And in tier 2 and in tier 3 we are at 33 right now and our recommendation is to move to 13 schools remaining in tier 3. I would also like to add that we have not moved any new schools into tier 3. All of the tier 3 schools that are remaining in our proposal were schools that are currently in tier 3 in this school year.

Okay.

Just another final summary for you on what is the percentage of schools in each of the tiers so that you have that information.

The box on the left is the number of schools and the percentage per tier.

The box on the right is the number of students per tier as we looked at it.

And then finally, just want to make sure we are daylighting, what are the start times?

Tier 1 start time is at 8 a.m.

and if you are in elementary, you are out at 210. If you are in middle school, you are out at 230. Tier 2 is all secondaries so if you get to school at 850 you are out at 320 currently and Tier 3 if you are in elementary you start at 940 and are out at 350. K-8s have a little bit of a longer day.

They start at 940 and are out at 410. And as you know, this is the legislative process and one of the things that we wanted to make sure that we are doing for the board is that we are continuing to collect all the information.

So we will close out arrival times on November 1st.

We have encouraged all of our PTAs and our families to make sure that they are providing their information there.

That information is currently being tabulated and we will be sharing that with the board so that you will see that information prior to your vote.

Because it is important that everybody has an opportunity to provide feedback.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let's go to our ops chair and hear from the committee on the recommendation.

This comes to our committee and it was recommended by the committee to move forward for full board approval.

Thank you.

So with that I will open it up to questions or comments from directors.

I know that many items were covered in the committee of the whole and that was just last Thursday I believe it was.

Director Patu.

This is just for clarity.

I think I heard you right that the schools that are at 940 are actually schools that are already on that time frame.

They are already in tier 3. Now this year's tier 3 starts at 930. Because we had to move all of our tiers a little bit later, so our first tier elementary students wouldn't start until 8 a.m., every tier got moved back 10 minutes.

Because right now our tier 1 starts at 750. So that's a 10 minute push.

But they're staying in the same tier, correct?

I would also add that Director Peters alluded to one of the things that we're looking at as we're looking at the feedback that's coming in from our families is we're trying to see if there is an opportunity to actually shift that a little bit.

So we will bring that information back for you as we do that analysis because I know that for families five minutes can make a difference.

And so we're looking at that very seriously.

All right questions, Director Peaslee.

I have a question about transportation which was part of the presentation way way back.

I've heard from several Hazel Wolf families who live in the Maple Leaf area.

And these are families that have been attending Hazel Wolf for a number of years so their transportation is going away.

And apparently there are quite a few families in the Maple Leaf area who go to Hazel Wolf and so I'm wondering what the possibility is of a hub stop.

So we were listening carefully to some of that feedback also and the transportation is looking at that.

We'll examine that and bring back what options are available.

Okay and I would also just like to say thank you so much for the unbelievable amount of work you've done on the bell times.

community engagement and analysis.

I have never seen such a thorough process and such willingness to really listen to all of the input and make every conceivable possible effort to accommodate as many people as possible.

So it's just, I don't even, heroic, the amount of effort that you have gone to to satisfy as many people as possible so I just want to thank you.

I want to thank you for that however this was a team effort and if you will indulge me I just want to bring out some names here.

First of all out of our transportation department Kathy Katterhagen, Ellen Reyes and the person behind the scenes Stephen Richards who has been doing the phenomenal routing and stacking for us, working weekends, nights, trying to figure out how that works.

He was supported by the rest of the transportation team and also way in the back, raise your hand there Kyle.

Kyle is our new, Kyle Brown, our new transportation manager who just came on board this last week who will be helping us if you move this forward, implement everything.

But also Neighbor to Neighbor was a huge new program that we took on.

Bernardo Ruiz led that work with Jesse Johnson and that was a huge battle of work.

I would say all the teachers, the leadership team, I kept coming back, certainly the superintendent who would smile at me when it got tough and say keep going Peg.

So it has really been a team effort here as we've moved this forward.

So thank you for that.

Thank you.

Oh and Sam.

And Sam.

Sam is sort of the brains behind everything and I say thank you every time so thank you for that.

Sam Markard who is our project manager and really the brains behind everything.

And he's not here.

We'll have to talk about that.

Alright Director Peters.

I'd also like to join the bandwagon of thanks to everybody for their hard work on this.

Team Reed, I'm glad to hear that Michael Tully is looking into what we can do about mitigating against that because that's such a valuable program.

Whether that means adding other schools or doing something so our high school students can still help our elementary school students.

I very much support that.

940 so I'm just going to thank you for looking into that just to clarify for people who might not have caught what's going on.

You know the tier 3 schools right now start at 930 under this proposal there would be 13 schools that would start at 940. A couple of them wanted that later start but a lot of people are giving us feedback saying this is too late and I do understand that the basic hardships having to do with needing childcare before school.

working parents having a hard time getting their kids to work and getting their kids to school.

Being out of sync with other schools.

Having lunchtime starting almost as soon as the kids start.

When they get to school all of a sudden the schools have to do their different shifts of lunch and it's almost lunchtime immediately.

Kids will not be availing themselves of the breakfast program when they start that late.

So there's actually some valid reasons why this is a hardship.

And so I have talked to Peggy and Peggy has said she's going to take a look at what we can do.

It might only be something like five minutes.

But that still might be very helpful.

I want to remind people that even though the school day starts at that time, that's not the time that the bus brings them.

The bus brings the kids to school 15 minutes before that.

They will catch the bus 20 minutes to 45 minutes before that.

So parents do get to unload their kids a little bit before that.

and I'm not belittling this at all because I've been a tier three parent for two years now so I know what you're talking about.

So thank you very much to Peggy to looking into this.

If we can move it five minutes or more that would be fantastic.

Is this something that you will bring to us two weeks from now or will this be a Friday memo announcement?

Where will we look for this?

Right now we are doing the analysis.

A couple of things that we wanted to do.

We wanted to benchmark because the recommendation was an 8 a.m.

start for elementary so we are doing that work.

We are looking at also if there are other national districts that have been able to do this successfully.

Is there other mitigation pieces?

And then obviously we need to talk with the schools and the principals to see is this a benefit for them.

So once we have that we will give you that information.

You may get Part of it in a Friday update and so that I will share that as soon as I can with you.

Okay great and then two other little points.

One of them is in two years from now I think it is we are going to be heading towards a longer school day.

Then is it possible that we might be looking at a two-tier option?

So and the superintendent probably will have to help me out here.

However, there is the conversation that's going on between SCA and schools about how that extra 20 minutes of instructional time will roll out.

Once we know what that looks like, then we'll be able to be able to figure out what does that mean for transportation and the school day for everybody.

But it's premature for us to promise a two-tier system at that time.

We'll be looking at it though.

Okay so it's a faint possibility.

Okay and then finally I just want to point out that I believe Bellevue school district is also looking into changing their bell times and I think some other districts are as well.

So we're right there on the cutting edge here with other districts and I think it's very exciting that we're doing this.

This is something that will help all of our kids in many fundamental ways and so again thank you all for your work on this and to all the community members who have been tirelessly coming to us and lobbying for this.

It's taken many many years and so thank you all.

Other questions or comments?

Director Patu.

I guess I just wanted to, so in two years we are going to go back to the drawing board and redo the times again?

So as we have a different schedule for our schools by adding instructional minutes to the schools we're going to have to go back and start to look at that again.

So I think we bring transportation standards to you every year with the bell times attached so as those instructional minutes get added or changed we will be incorporating that into the new transportation standards on an annual basis.

But you're not starting the whole process over again are you?

No.

Okay.

Thank you.

Director Blanford.

So as I was looking at the slide deck one of the things that struck me was the 29,000 inputs from community members and that's an impressive number.

My concern is in the past I've seen an analysis of where those inputs are coming from, from what parts of the city they're coming from.

And I didn't see that in the slide deck.

I will assume that you're continuing to do that level of analysis of the inputs.

Because what I fear, what I fear is that we look at the number and say 29,000, wow, we've, you know, half of, more than half of our families have told us, you know, that this is a good idea.

But they, it may not be, 29 may not be spread equally across the district.

29,000 may be spread in those, in those schools and communities that stand to benefit the most from this.

And we are starting to hear, we're starting to get the emails and people showing up at our community meetings that now that it's reified, it's become a lot more real, people are starting to balk at what it will mean for their families.

We heard some testimony today and we surely have been getting lots of emails lately.

And so I'm not asking for you to go back and revise your slide deck but it would be good to see that level of analysis particularly on those inputs because I don't want to just look at the number and say that it means more than it actually does mean.

We will provide everything that we can for you.

Anyone else?

I'll just add my thanks.

I keep saying that we don't make decisions up here.

We make choices.

And the fact that this is cost neutral is huge, because I just simply could not abide by more money being put in transportation when we have so many aching needs in our classrooms.

So thank you for your diligence on that front.

And to the team, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, I think with that one, we will move on to item, intro item number two of 12. Hint, hint.

Approval of Resolution 2015-16-6, OSPI Emergency Response Grant.

This is coming out of Ops.

And I see Ms. McEvoy is still here.

So thank you very much.

We are bringing forward a resolution that's required to close out one of the grants that we received.

As you know, we received an OSPI grant to improve our emergency communications and our common operating platform.

which allows the police to give direct information to our schools so that they have better situational awareness around what's happening in their community.

So it really has improved the collaboration there.

OSPI is requiring that the board certify that it has been put in place because part of the funds go to the police departments and the fire departments and they want to make sure that we're getting everything that we thought we were going to get.

So I want you to know that yes we have as a matter of fact we had OSPI come out and look at what we have put in place and they are thrilled with it.

They were quite impressed and want to use what we have put in with the police department as a model to show the legislators about how well the money was spent off of this grant.

So with that we are asking for your resolution and approval.

Thank you.

And this item came out of ops as I mentioned so let's hear from Director Patu.

This item came to the committee and we reviewed it and the committee made a recommendation to move forward for full board approval.

Thank you.

Alright so with that let's open it up to questions from directors.

I'm seeing some head shakes.

I think that mostly people are feeling this is fairly straightforward.

And of course, we're down to five up here at the moment.

So no questions, no comments.

So thank you.

You got off on a much shorter amount of time on that one than the previous one.

All right.

Introduction item number three, restructuring of the partnership with the Alliance for Education.

This is coming out of executive committee.

Good evening John Cerqui, Acting General Counsel.

Before you tonight for introduction is a board action report that discusses restructuring of our partnership, our alignment with the Alliance for Education.

This is being proposed from staff and also based on some direction from some of you school board members on how this alignment has currently worked.

We have had a memorandum of understanding with the alliance that has been board approved.

That expired in August of 2014. We had two renewals by the district but since March 31st we have not been operating under MOU with the alliance and we have not been able to reach agreement on what our shared vision should look like.

So we are bringing this to you to have a discussion in the public about what that alignment should look like.

The board action report discusses some of the steps that if approved staff and our school board directors could take which would be relinquishing seats on the alliance board of directors or resigning those seats.

Withdrawing permission for the alliance to use the SPS name or logo and materials to represent SPS in any way to fundraise or to solicit grants for SPS.

Discontinue participation in alliance events on a formal basis to look at whether there's any SPS funds that need to be returned back to the district such as ASB or school accounts.

evaluate whether we would want to continue to pay the alliance to do school-based account work for some of our groups and then just assess and make any other decisions particularly like with respect to the Seattle teacher residency program how we would want to continue to align if we do and there's been a recent communication back that they're willing to continue at the early funding level of $50,000 a year versus the increased amounts that they were asking the district to contribute.

Thank you.

All right.

This item has come from the executive committee.

It was discussed at the executive committee on October 14, 2015. And the committee reviewed the motion and moved it forward to the full board with a recommendation for approval.

And so with that, we'll open it up to questions or comments from directors.

OK.

Director McLarin.

I'm sorry I'm not remembering the details of the letter that we received from the alliance but I do recall as you said that there was a suggestion that we continue with the Seattle teacher residency at a rate of $50,000 a year.

which sounds to me like a nice model of how we might restructure this partnership to have specific projects like that one.

And I can't remember, I think there was also discussion of continuing with acting as a fiscal agent for maybe some of the PTA groups, but people are, I'm not sure if I remember that right.

That is correct.

They said they will continue to provide fiscal accounting services to schools through the 15-16 school year at the agreed-upon rate of 7.5% And if the district invites the alliance to participate in the annual contracting process beyond the current year They will make a determination as to whether they want to do that and we want to do that They also provide part of the foster grant to some of our principals so there's other items that they would probably continue to do.

I guess Ms. Broome could assess whether that's something they'd want to continue but there's also other things that they do independent of the district.

Director Peasley.

So how would we continue to do these various and sundry pieces of work?

Would there be contracts for each work?

Would there be a new kind of MOU?

How would we move forward?

On the service contracts for schools, I believe Assistant Superintendent Ken Gotch has issued an RFP and that they've responded so he can probably answer further information but that's something that we would contract with them on an annual basis.

Yes, Ken Gotch, Assistant Superintendent for Business and Finance at the board's direction, we did go out for an RFP.

to solicit those fiscal services that the Alliance for Education was currently providing.

We did create a board informative on that process.

We took it to the Audit and Finance Committee this past summer to kind of daylight it.

And we're in the process of completing a professional service agreement with the Alliance for the next year to kind of continue to support those school account services that they're currently providing.

Okay, but what about other, this is for John, what about other parts of, other ways in which we work with the alliance?

Would there be contracts?

For instance, for STR, the contract has expired.

So do we revise that contract?

How do we move forward on each specific area in which we continue to work with the alliance?

So one of the recommendations would be that we could have a specific contract with the alliance on the items where we did see a shared vision and alignment and we could agree upon some terms to those that are probably much more specific and finite than the broader prior existing MOU.

So that would be a contract for if we wanted to partner on the 16, 17 STR, we could say the district's willing to contribute 50,000 for the program, and we agree on the number of cohorts that there would be in the program, and we could have something short.

The original MOU with SCA, the UW, the Alliance, we need to give notice by November 30th if we wanna remove ourself, although it's expired, it does continue until we cancel it.

So we could continue each item on a contract basis, a specific contract basis if they're acceptable to that.

It needs to be mutual.

So I'd answer that in addition to what John Cerqui just said.

The recommendation that I got speaking to someone at the city was the parallel was made And with the city, we have an annual contract.

We work on a contract basis.

And so we need, in my mind, to be working where we have a contract.

And the idea would be you could negotiate a specific statement of work.

You discuss the terms and conditions.

People agree.

If you come to an agreement, you button it down.

You've got a contract for the year.

I think it has to be much more structured than it has been and we need to move into an era where we've reset and can be more specific about what the scope and the terms of the relationship are.

Other questions or comments on this one?

Director Blanford.

I'll just say that I am sad that we have gotten to this point.

My closest mentor was one of the forefathers of the creation of the alliance for education and I worked for the alliance for several years and what I know about the relationships between school districts and organizations like the alliance is that They frequently have times where they work really well together and times when there's a little bit more friction and challenge in the relationship.

As we sit around this table and we have to make decisions frequently that involve the fact that there's not enough money, it saddens me to think that we would be making a decision that would have any impact on on revenues and our ability to serve our students and so my hope is that during this time of reset that I won't say cooler heads will prevail but that we can realize that the benefit to the students of Seattle is better, is more accomplished when we work in partnership than in any other way and I hope that we can get back to a tighter relationship in the future.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions.

Director Peters.

Sorry if I'm not remembering people's names very quickly.

Well I think that it's important that we're having these conversations and you know my own observation has been that this is a partnership that has gone off course and perhaps has run its course and we do have other partnerships that we can cultivate and I would encourage us to do that and so that's about all I have to say about this at this point.

Director Peasley.

So I've been involved with the discussions around this for at least the last year and I think there's a lot of sadness all around.

I think that People remember a time when there was a better relationship between SPS and the alliance.

The fact is Seattle Public Schools does need a fundraising partner but we need a fundraising partner that is fully aligned with us.

and that completely supports our needs.

And we do not have that kind of a relationship at this time with the alliance.

As far as I'm concerned I think that that need is very strong.

We need to have a strong relationship with our business community, with our philanthropic partners.

But the relationship needs to be one in which the needs of Seattle Public Schools and our students are fully supported and not dictated by that partner.

Other questions or comments?

Noting that this is introduction and there will certainly be another opportunity for dialogue when we take action on the 4th.

Okay, I'm not seeing anyone making eye contact or waving their hand at me, so thank you.

All right.

That takes us to item number four of 12. Approval of Resolution 2015-16-7, Certification of the Operations Levy Collection Amount for 2016. And this is for introduction coming out of Audit and Finance.

Linda Sebring, welcome.

Good to see you.

Thank you.

Linda Sebring, Budget Director.

So what we are asking the board to vote on is Resolution 2015-16-7 certification of the operations levy collection amount for the calendar year 2016. This is basically a technical process that the board is asked to go through every time that our Operations levy varies from what has actually been authorized by the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.

So there are two calculations that determine how much property taxes we can collect from our voters.

One is what the voters authorize us to collect and it's tempered by a formula from the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.

So when the OSPI or Office of Public Instruction number is smaller than what the voters have authorized us for, we do what is called a levy rollback.

And that is a recertification of the levy.

So that's what you're looking at in front of you.

When we asked the voters three years ago for a levy for the operations, we asked for $199 million.

$600,000 and based on OSPI's formula, we are only authorized to collect $196,356,645.

So it's a reduction from what we originally asked the voters for of $3,243,355.

Alright so let's go to our audit and finance chair please and hear from the committee.

So this did come before the audit and finance committee with a recommendation for approval.

Thank you.

Alright Director Peasley.

Is this in any way related to the levy lid?

Yes, it is.

Again, there's two numbers that determine how much we can collect it from our local property taxes.

The one, the levy lid, which you're referring to, which is coming up as far as some changes is OSPI.

And the legislature sets the formula for OSPI's portion of the calculation in legislative language.

So they make changes every year as to how much we can collect from our local property taxes.

And the levy lid is basically this.

It's the top amount we can collect from our voters.

So if they reduce this lid, as they did for 15-16, they changed part of the formula that is called a levy per pupil inflator, which we'll talk more about next week at our budget presentation with the board, that has the ability to reduce our collections more significantly in the 2017 school year.

And where is this heading?

Will the lid be lowered each year?

Is that the plan?

I'm just, I think it's very important for all of us to understand what has been legislated in relation to the levy lid and the impact that's going to have on our levy.

So there's, the certification we're talking about right now is for the 2016 calendar year.

So that is already, the state has a biennium budget that they put in place, which is a two-year budget.

So they put in place a budget that affects our 15-16 school year and our 16-17.

So we already know what the formulas are going to be for our 2016 calendar year.

And they've set those formulas.

What is also in legislative language is back in 2012, they allowed us to increase the ceiling on our levy collections.

For Seattle, that meant adding another 4% of this very complex formula that they run to determine how much we can collect.

that is scheduled to sunset in the 2017-18 school year.

So that, again we'll be talking about it at our budget work session next week, has the potential for not just affecting Seattle Public Schools but all school districts who have the fortune of being able to operate a levy by dramatically reducing how much we can collect from our local voters.

And it doesn't take into consideration what the voters might want to support for us, it is The legislator's paramount duty to provide public education so they want to reduce our reliance on local levies.

And that is one way they will do it.

What's going to happen in the future?

I don't know right now.

What is the legislative process in getting them to change that?

The levy information?

The levy lid.

The levy lid.

So the Senators from around the state right now are going on a listening tour.

McCleary, the lawsuit requires them to reduce school district reliance on local levies.

So they are trying to determine exactly what they are going to do with local levies and how much they're going to reduce them.

Seattle is very blessed.

We have a very high percentage levy.

And we also have the downtown core that helps keep the rates very low for our residents.

So again, we can talk more about it at the budget work session as to what we might want to do with our legislative agenda.

I think that would be a good place to go deeper rather than here tonight on item 4 of 12. Other questions?

All right, so more discussion to come on this one.

Did I go to the committee chair?

Yeah, I did.

OK, sorry.

All right, so thank you very much on that one.

And you're probably staying here for the next item, right?

Yes, ma'am.

OK, so the next one, item 5 of 12, operations levy and authorizing resolution 2015-16-9.

Again, from ANF and ops.

Am I on the right one?

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

So who's going to speak to this one?

So this did come before audit and finance with a recommendation.

I think for consideration because I think there were some changes that were things that were missing in it from the ANF side of things.

All right.

And then why don't we go ahead, since we heard from ANF, let's hear from Ops as well.

And then somebody needs to speak to the item.

This also came to Ops, and the committee recommended for full board approval.

Thank you.

All right, so Linda, are you speaking to this item?

Yes, so what we are bringing forward to you is the other part of the equation on operations levies.

So it is the hope of the district that we will bring a levy to our voters in February of 2016. It's a renewal of the levy we were just talking about, and we'll be running for a three calendar year process.

So it would cover the 17, 18, and 19 calendar years, which means from January through December.

it would affect those property taxes.

We recognize this is an uncertain time with the legislature as to what they might be doing with levies, but our assumptions for this operating levy, which covers about 25%, a little over 25% of our annual operating costs, is that it will continue and the issues with the levy that the legislature has been dealing with will not affect it in a negative way.

That is one thing I've heard the legislators are trying to do is do no harm to local funding of school districts.

So, what you have in front of you is the details as to what the resolution would authorize.

It would authorize us asking the voters for a levy in calendar year 2017 of $229.4 million.

$250.3 million in calendar year 2018 and $278.6 million in 2019. The levy increases from one year to the next because, again, our authority granted to us by the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction is based on our total revenues.

So when we come up with these estimates, we do an awful lot of formulas and estimates based on what we believe is in legislative language now, what might happen with different funding.

One unique thing on this levy that was not in the previous levy is unless charter schools are Unfunded by the state they will receive their portion of this levy for the number of kids and revenue they have.

If they don't receive it our assumption is that Seattle Public Schools will because the kids will come back to the public school system.

This puts Seattle at one of the lowest, maintains Seattle's position as one of the lowest tax rates out of 19 King County school districts.

Bellevue is, when we look at that and make that assumption, we are looking back because we, levies are usually articulated as what's called the mill rate, which is the dollars per thousand of assessed value of a home.

And, you know, Seattle, because we have the, we're rich with the downtown core and all those high rises, they pay a large portion of the support for property taxes.

And, again, that helps our residents cover some of the costs for our residents of this total dollar amount.

These dollar amounts will be adjusted annually, just like what we just talked about, with the certification of levy based on OSPI's formula.

And typically we're a little off a million dollars here or there, like we just mentioned, three million.

So we've been fortunate in the past that our voters will actually end up paying a little bit less than this.

And the amounts that we put in the voters pamphlet sometimes are also less because as growth and property values go up, and I heard today, we're one of the hottest areas in the nation for our home prices.

People's individual taxes may vary depending on if their neighbor's property values go up faster than theirs.

All right.

So with that let's open it up to questions and comments.

I see Director Peaslee has a question or comment.

Did I hear you say that the levy lid would not impact this levy?

We don't know.

Right now the legislative language due to the sun setting of the extra 4% for the district would impact this levy, but we've heard from several legislators and others around the state that they are going to find a way to ensure that we don't get harmed.

They haven't gone into specifics yet.

This levy crosses out of the current biennium the state has voted on into future bienniums.

So there is, as I mentioned, probably some of the most uncertainty out there than we have ever seen in a levy.

But we don't want to have to go back to our voters every year or every two years.

It creates a little voter fatigue when you have to keep asking them.

Director Blanford.

I don't know if the answer to my question is quick or not.

If it's not, then by all means, we can discuss it later on.

You raised the issue about charter schools and the impact that it has on levies.

And that prompted in my mind a question about with the current funds that are coming in as a result of the levy, are they still allocated to charter schools this year?

And I might have to defer to Mr. Sirkoy, but my understanding is they only get levies going forward after you approve a new one.

So they were not in operation when we approved the last levy, so they do not have access to any of the levy funds until we pass a new levy, which would be this one.

If they're entitled to receive funds from the state at that point?

Yeah, and in addition to the levy funds, it's our understanding that the state office of public instruction is still funding general state aid to the Charters pending the outcome of the Supreme Court decisions.

Ken Gottsch, assistant superintendent for business and finance.

Also, I wanted to mention, too, that we'll be holding a public hearing on this levy next week before the start of the board work session on the budget.

I don't think we noted that in the BAR.

I'll make sure we add that to the BAR, but it's an important procedural step in the adoption of the levy.

And that is in this room at 4 p.m.

next Wednesday, October 28th from 4 to 430. And that's not a legally required public hearing.

That is our policy saying we would like to get some additional input on this item.

So 4 o'clock.

All right.

Director Peters.

I just want to tag on to the end of that one.

So from 4 to 430 is my understanding that we are open to public comment.

Is that correct?

Next week.

And so it will be the usual rules, a two minute time limit for speakers.

And how do people sign up the way they normally do?

First come first serve at the meeting next Wednesday at 4. Is that right?

Correct.

And that will also apply to the capital levy item that's coming up as well.

Both levies will be part of the hearing process.

Okay.

And again, this is the board policy we're working to here.

This isn't a WAC or an RCW that says thou must do a public hearing.

This is a board policy that's driving it.

So it would fall under our public testimony rules.

Except for the fact that you sign up here instead of sending an email in on Monday.

All right, thank you for those clarifying questions.

Anything else on this item?

All right, why don't we move to the next item, and that is...

I'm losing track.

Bex for the contract award RFP 095062 vendor for purchase of classroom technology for learning and this one's coming out of Ops.

Good evening, Carmen Ram, Chief Information Officer.

Colleen Halverson, DOTS.

We need two microphones here.

So we're here to present for the award for contracts with Dell and Apple computers in the amount not to exceed $3,250,000 for both the FY16 and FY17 and this is for the replacement of student computers and ancillary equipment in all of the schools throughout the district.

All right and this is coming from ops if we could hear from Director Patu please.

This came to our committee and it was discussed and the committee recommended that move forward for consideration because he didn't have the numbers in terms of how much it really was going to cost for the whole thing.

Okay thank you.

Questions on this item from directors?

Director Martin-Morris.

Just to be clear the vendor hasn't, the bids haven't been opened yet for this correct?

The bids have now been opened I believe and Colleen can give you a little information on that.

Yeah we got the bids just of yesterday but we haven't actually tallied all the results but they are in yes.

All right and obviously they will be updated in the bar I'm hoping by next week so that we can.

Absolutely yes.

Thank you.

Now one of the things that goes along with this so and I'm not sure how this will work with this situation is that you know when we come back for the for the full bar I'm hoping it can still be a not to exceed bar because the situation is that we don't know exactly what the mix is going to be between the Apple and the Dell computers.

The schools are now all going through their process of working with their teams to decide laptops versus desktops because we have standards out there and then whether they want Apple or Dell.

So we're getting that information back.

We have rough ideas of ballpark numbers of what we think the mix will be.

But up until the middle of December when we finally get those exact numbers from the schools, we will not know.

We will know how much it costs per device and what the bids are, but we will not know until the final bids are made.

And then if we save money in other areas, we may actually be able to order more computers than we originally predicted.

All right, other questions?

Director Peasley.

You may have said this, I may have missed it, but there's a significant difference between the cost of a Dell and the cost of a Mac.

So how are you taking that into account in terms of allocating resources?

Do schools have to make that choice?

They get the same amount of money and they can use it either to buy fewer Macs or more Dells?

That is exactly correct.

And then they can also, whether it be an Apple laptop or a desktop, and they can also buy iPads where we allow them to buy something like a two-for-one if they want to buy iPads.

But in the presentation that we've given the Ops Cabinet and that is in the board packet, You know, we clearly identify in there kind of a selection criteria that we do want them to be looking at the big picture and buying computers that are appropriate for online testing, SBAC testing in the spring.

There's not going to be any second pot of money to come by like we did this year and provide other equipment.

So we've got that rate that they know that buying the less expensive computers are not going to provide them the functionality for that online testing and other services.

Director Blanford.

What will be the disposition of the surplus computers that these are replacing?

they are going out the door.

They are beyond service in the information that we presented to the board in the packet and everything.

Unfortunately, with the funding that we have this year, it seems like a lot of money, but in reality, with the money we have this year, we're actually not able to reduce the student to computer ratio.

We're only able to get rid of the oldest of the old computers that are in the schools right now that are actually considered beyond service.

So they're not beyond warranty, they're not beyond use, They're actually beyond the level of service so they need to come out because they're no longer functioning in the school to any appropriate level.

I don't know if I wasn't precise enough, what happens to them when they leave?

When they go out the door?

They actually go to surplus and they're just dealt with the district I think sells them.

So there's a surplus process for that.

And so we wipe all the hard drives to make sure there's no district information on those.

Director Peters.

So it says in the bar that what we're doing differently this year is we're going to have a central purchasing, central storage of these computers rather than having schools purchase these individually and that that can allow us to buy things in bulk and get a different, get a discount.

Am I sort of stumbling my way through this?

How much of a discount or how much of a savings are we going to be able to see percentage wise doing it this way and are there any downsides to doing it this way?

I don't know if you know an exact percentage or not you know at this time and we did buy them centrally last year I mean they were bought I guess centrally but they weren't bought in bulk so the previous levies up to this point and even in the in the BTA III levy what happened was they went school by school they'd get the information from the school and every month they'd go out and buy a hundred computers and so we weren't getting discounts when you're going out to Dell and buying a hundred computers in March and a hundred and fifty computers in April and things like that.

So this, as you pointed out, this way we're doing it, we're collecting all the information up front from the schools.

I guess if there's a downside, the downside would be that we are putting more pressure on the schools to make decisions sooner.

But, and we're also giving them a little bit less of a choice, you know, we're setting standards but saying that in order to support them and to reduce total cost of ownership, we've really got to standardize on this version of an Apple laptop, this version of a desktop, and the schools are being very receptive to that.

The feedback we've gotten has been very, very good.

So I can't give you an exact number for what the discount is, but we'll know later on when we get all the bids open and things like that.

Thank you.

The real savings if I can comment really quickly the real savings is coming through the process that we're using to get them into the schools where they're being tagged and imaged by the third party getting them in there because we don't have the resources to do that so instead of having to ramp up with a huge number of resources here we're able to let the the original equipment manufacturers and then the next bar that we're going to talk about in a couple minutes handle that so we're not dragging this out over a long period of time to get them into the school.

We can get them in there as quickly as we did with the SBAC computers last year which was a real change to the process the district has used in the past.

All right, so we're going to go to that item now, which is item seven.

And to the extent that there's similar twos, let's just cite what those are to the previous one and not repeat that part of it.

But this is the award to Thornburg Computer Services LLC for computer installation and support services.

Again, coming out of Ops.

So why don't we go to the Ops chair first.

This also came to the committee and it was recommended to move forward for consideration.

Thank you.

Alright so if you want to talk the aspects that are unique to this one please.

This one we were just the contract was just opened up we went up for a full RFP on this one not just a competitive bid but a full RFP and Thornburg was the winner of that process and you know this provides a third party vendor where the computers go to them where they assist with the imaging.

It's really a lean process because in the past the computers were opened up at the manufacturer, repackaged, shipped, opened up, repackaged, brought to the district, opened up, repackaged in a very lengthy and tedious process.

This gets them through the equipment right to the schools where they can be utilized a lot faster and they have the resources to scale up so that we can get them processed quicker.

Questions from directors on this item?

I'm not seeing any questions, hearing any questions, seeing no one trying to get my attention.

So I already did that.

No, that's okay.

You've got to keep me in check here.

All right.

So thank you.

And we'll look forward to seeing you guys when we take this up for action.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

Item 8 of 12, update on the 2013 through 2020 growth boundaries plan.

And this item is coming out of Ops, so she's getting her papers ready.

Why don't we go ahead and go to our Ops committee chair.

This also came to Ops and it was recommended by the committee to move this forward for full board approval.

All right, so take it away.

Hi, I'm Ashley Davies, Director of Enrollment Planning.

And so I'm here to talk to you to bring to the board around a change you have in your packets, a map that references the approved boundary changes back in November of 2013. And so we had been going out and discussing, reminding the communities about the changes that are upcoming for 2016-17.

and recognized that one of the change areas needed to be modified.

So change area 53 is specifically what we are here to talk about today.

And we are recommending that change area 53 be moved.

It initially was set to move from the West Seattle attendance area to the Arbor Heights attendance area.

And given the fact that the E.C.

Hughes building is scheduled to come online at a future date, and it's likely that Roxhill will move to E.C.

Hughes, it makes the most sense to have that change area within the Roxhill boundary.

So you know as we presented to the communities there's less than 10 students who live in that change area 53. A small number of students but it really doesn't make sense to make the changes as they already were approved which would have those students going to Arbor Heights.

So specifically the only change that we're talking about is area 53 amending those previously approved changes from having area 53 to Arbor Heights now to being in Roxhill.

And that's the only change, there are not changes in the middle and high school one?

That's the only change.

Okay.

Alright so questions from directors.

Director Peasley.

When does this take effect?

Does it take effect this coming school year or the following school year?

2016-17.

Okay so it's this coming school year.

This coming school year yes.

Because this was part of the series of changes given that the new Arbor Heights building will be opening next year so this is with all those changes.

And these are part of the only set of changes for 2016-17.

Director Patu.

So with that change, how many students are actually affected by this?

By the change we are proposing less than 10. So typically when we are talking about student numbers less than 10 we don't identify that number just given that it could be easy to identify those students.

But I can tell you it is less than 10.

Thank you.

Director McLaren.

So I just want to share with my colleagues information that we gathered at the community meeting on Monday night, which is that in the other two areas, which were already slated for change next year, there's a total of about 40 students who will be changing their school.

And I have to acknowledge that there is a strong amount of resistance to following through with that agreed upon change and that hopefully there will be a meeting between the two principals and I'm not sure if there will be community members present.

So just to let you understand that the only change in the plan really does affect a small number of students but the fact that the timing is such that a change that was previously ordained is going to happen next year is what adds 40 more students and is bringing a lot of angst to that West Seattle elementary.

Thank you for that.

Director Peters.

I have two facilities questions.

What will happen to the Roxhill building and what shape will the E.C.

Hughes building be in?

So at this point, use of the Roxhill building has not been identified, but EC Hughes building is going to be undergoing some renovations, upgrades, and that building itself is much larger than the Roxhill building.

So Roxhill total capacity is around 400. The EC Hughes total capacity will be about 550. It also has a much larger land area for parking.

And other things so it's going to be a much better environment for teaching and learning than the Roxhill building.

But again at this point there is not a use identified for Roxhill but we are looking at EC Hughes opening not before probably 2018.

Thank you.

Director Martin Morris.

Just to add to that, the Roxhill building in terms of its overall condition is significantly less than the E.C.

Hughes building will be.

So that will allow us to have an interim site if we ever need one or an emergency site.

More likely than not it will go into the inventory for that purpose if we so choose to.

Director McLaren.

And another community mood alert is that at the meeting the other night it was expressed that members of the community want to keep their building.

They would like to go to EC Hughes and have the Roxhill building renovated so that they can return to it.

So just be aware that this is going to be a continuing point of interest.

Any other questions or comments on this item?

All right.

Thank you very much.

And with that we will move on to item number nine, property exchange agreement with the City of Seattle for the disposition of district-owned property located at South Shore Elementary in exchange for city-owned property located at Garfield Playfield coming out of Audit and Finance.

And that this did come before Audit and Finance with a recommendation for approval by the entire board.

Thank you.

Mr. Cerqui.

Good evening, John Cerqui, Acting General Counsel, and with me is Bruce Scala, the Director of Facilities and Operations, to answer any questions you might have about the actual property swap and what's currently on the two properties.

So what you have before you is a board action report.

And I want to be transparent that I had this drafted and reviewed as well as all the legal documents by outside legal counsel at Perkins Coie since it does involve a property transaction.

The skill set of my predecessor but not of myself so I want to make sure this is done correctly.

So this is done under the RCW 3933 which is Intergovernmental Transactions Act.

So the big picture is we built Garfield and remodeled that in the 2006-2008 period.

In order for us to have a gymnasium that had a performance center in it, we needed some space that the city owned kind of north of the property.

to make a big gym.

They also had a teen life health center that is now, was at the time, in the parking lot.

So that got demolished and as part of the deal to get this done was we need space in your new building to have our teen health life center.

So part of this agreement that I'll discuss in a few minutes is lease agreement that was part of the deal to give them space for their teen life health center, and that's a 33-year lease plus three five-year renewals.

That's a 58-year lease in the gym performing arts center.

In exchange, we gave the city property that's at the South Shore K-8, which is part of our brand new community center down there.

And it's a little bit of a horseshoe around the community center, but it allowed them to expand their community center by giving some additional property.

down south.

Initially, what probably caused this to be eight years late is that there was going to be a deal to transfer property at the inner bay location and then there was changing of minds and we don't want that property, we'd rather have this property.

So the words of wisdom that I learned kind of jumping into this process is we really need to get our ducks in a row and exchange the properties and do a swap and bring them to you for legal authority to do that prior to them building on the property because it's very hard to unwind a deal once we have a building on land that we don't own.

So this is honoring that promise with the city and the commitment And it's also transferring legal title to the property at the Garfield location to Seattle Public Schools and then transferring the property that we own at South Shore to the City of Seattle and Parks.

So what you have before you is a property exchange agreement.

There's also deeds and easements that will be, that are part of that to allow access, fire access.

There is the part of the lease agreement that went under a lease for, with parks so they can have space and we can execute a lease for the 43 years plus the 15 years renewals if they want it.

It's for $1.

So as part of this motion, we are asking that we the requirements of policy 6882. That requires that there be certain things before the board enters into a long-term lease.

And those were not done in this situation.

The first reason is 6882 was not in place at the time of 2006. We had a different policy to the extent I could find it.

It was H20.

It was one paragraph and it didn't talk about all the requirements.

So I'm pleased that we have a pretty detailed policy that would not allow staff to enter into long-term leases without board approval.

But there's some other requirements that are in the lease that we're not complying with here.

For example, as a youth education center without, I would argue, the teen health center for the city of Seattle would qualify for reduced rent at 50%, but $1 is not a reduced rent at 50% in the central area of the city.

It must be reviewed every two years.

This will not be reviewed every two years.

This is a 43-year lease plus the 555 renewal.

We need to compare a long-term lease to a sale option, and that was not done here.

That might have been done potentially in 2006, but I have no documentation of that.

Long-term lease of property normally be accomplished through a publicly advertised request for proposals, and there is no documentation for that.

So that is why we are asking that we waive the policy just for this particular motion.

the board would be approving the long-term lease for 58 years when you approved the superintendent to sign the property exchange agreement that's attached.

All right so we've heard from the committee chair so let's open it up to questions that directors might have.

All right, it's looking pretty quiet up here.

So that certainly doesn't preclude us from considering it over a cup of coffee on Saturday and sending an email.

So I think it may in part have to do with the hour, that we're not all as sharp as we might normally be.

So let's go ahead and move on to the next item.

Thank you for that, Mr. Cerqui.

So let's go on to number 10. And this is BTA IV levy and authorizing resolution 2015-16-10 coming out of both ANF and OPS.

We must be getting near the end.

I'm seeing the capital team.

Yes.

Do you go to committee first?

Oh, yes.

Thank you for holding me on that task.

I never do it quite the same way twice, unfortunately.

It's the good news.

I usually get to them.

Let's hear from A&F first and then from us.

So Audit and Finance Committee did meet and requested that this go before the full board for approval.

Alright and from Ops please.

This also came to Ops and it was recommended by the committee to move forward with full board approval.

Thank you.

Alright so let's turn it over to you Mr. Best.

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

Tonight I'm introducing the buildings, technologies, academics, and athletics commonly referred to as BTA and in this case it will be BTA IV.

Capital Levy Program, it's proposed to run from 2016 to 2022 and I'm also introducing resolution 2015-16-10.

Under your board policy 6100, revenues from local, state, and federal sources, the board must approve the submitted levy and resolution for voter approval of special access levies.

for capital fund purposes.

The fiscal impact to this action is $475,300,000.

The revenue source is local property tax levy that this action will be placed before the voters in an election on February 9, 2016 and it's a six year property tax.

Some background information concerning this is that this levy replaces the expiring BTA III levy.

That was approved by the voters in 2010. Cost of the levy to the taxpayer depends on the assessed value of each taxpayer's home and the total assessed value of all property in the City of Seattle.

I think all of you are familiar with that.

I know Flip Herndon went over that in detail at a board study session on September 16th.

Funding for this levy will help reduce the backlog of maintenance.

This levy alone will reduce the backlog of maintenance $136 million.

When you look at the BTA III, BEX IV, and then BTA IV, we actually go from a backlog of maintenance of approximately $500 million to a backlog of maintenance of $246 million.

So it's substantially moving the district in the right direction.

We have had several meetings with the public after our board study session on September 16 throughout the geographical areas of the city of Seattle.

We reviewed the building improvements, the technology improvements, and the academic and athletic improvements with the various community members that did attend those meetings.

We, similar to BTA III, we have capacity projects identified in BTA IV.

We went over those with you in 2000 or in our meeting on September 16th but I'm going to again review those with you now.

We have EC Hughes which is located in West Seattle and Ashley Davis spoke to EC Hughes.

We're planning to renovate that to have that open in the fall of 2018. We have Magnolia which is located in the Magnolia area.

And we are planning to renovate that to have that open in the fall of 2018. And then we also have Webster Elementary School that we are planning to renovate to have open in the fall of 2020. In addition we are planning a 500 seat classroom addition at Ingram High School.

These address significant capacity concerns that have been identified by enrollment planning and also by the planning group from a facility standpoint that work for me.

And so we provided that information to you in September 16 as well.

And that information is also available now on our website.

With that I think I'll open it up to questions from the board members.

Alright thank you.

I'll just underscore the point that there has been extensive community input, schools have had opportunities to make their requests and so forth in the process.

So questions from directors.

Director Peaslee.

Quick question, does the levy lid have any impact on this levy?

No the levy lid does not have an impact on capital projects levies.

It has an impact on general levies.

However, there is always a consideration as to what the voter can afford.

I can tell you that we did have to reduce some of the planned maintenance improvements we would like to make because of the capacity needs.

And I know that our chief information officer also had to reduce some of the technology improvements that he would like to make for the district and that was information that we presented Director Peasley on September 16 and you were very clear with your direction to us so that was appreciated.

Alright other questions or comments?

Director Patu.

I really appreciate the fact that you brought it down from 5 million to 273 I think, if I'm correct.

And then hopefully I realize that you're also trying to bring it down even lower.

246 million at the completion of BTA IV and we are always looking at ways to reduce that.

Bruce Skowron, I have conversations with Associate Superintendent Herndon.

all the time on how to reduce our backlog of maintenance.

That's really great because when I first got on the board I think it was 8 million and it went down to 5 and now it's down to 200 which is wonderful.

Thank you.

Director Blanford.

At our last executive session meeting we had a little bit of discussion about ways to get ahead of the curve on some of the issues that we have to go out into the community and discuss or defend and it seems to me that this might be a great opportunity to have a one pager that explains what's proposed and why, what issue it will resolve.

That might be helpful, I'm thinking about my community meetings or other meetings that I go to where I receive questions and it would be helpful to be able to distribute that or to use it as a leave behind so that people are, we're all singing from the same song sheet and our communities are informed.

Okay we will develop that.

It will have to be factual in nature, it cannot be promotional according to, I forget which group but yeah there is an oversight group.

And we will definitely get that information to you.

Alright so we are at 9.07 we still have an item or two here and we have a 30 minute closed session to boot so are there other questions?

need to be covered now.

All right.

Thank you with that.

Thank you very much.

And let's move on to the BEX IV Loyal Heights Elementary School value engineering report and this is coming out of ops.

Yes.

Sorry.

Director Patu.

This also came to our committee and it was recommended by the full committee to move forward for full board approval.

So, Loyal Heights Elementary School, this is rather a common practice for all of our BEX projects that receive state funding.

The school board is required to review the value engineering report.

As I've mentioned previously, value engineering reports are brainstorming sessions with the The various disciplines, architects, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, structural engineers, and civil engineers as to ways that we can enhance design to save resources, fiscal resources.

Some of their recommendations sometimes add costs but most of them they focus on ways to save money.

And this was the study done for Loyal Heights Elementary School.

Some of the changes that came out of this, I know that there were 39 different recommendations made of which 24 had potential cost savings.

16 were rejected for various reasons but 8 were accepted that had a cost savings of $2,850,000.

We continue, I will note that we did hear and that you heard tonight concerns about size of the school at Loyal Heights Elementary School.

We are continuing to look at ways to compress the footprint of that building so that there is more space available on site for playground needs.

What was represented to the voters was a school of 660 students and so we believe there is a commitment made to the citizens of Seattle to deliver a school of 660 students but our design team is working on ways to minimize and mitigate the impact to that local community.

So your approval for the value engineering report is required for OSPI, then OSPI, it's required for us to receive state funding from OSPI and so this document needs to receive your approval.

Director Peasley.

So I was at the departures meeting this past week and a number of issues were brought up over and over and over.

First of all, is there a need for a 660 seat school at that site?

From a capacity standpoint there is Director Puesley and as we look to the future to Ballard in particular and you look at the construction projects that are being built there you'll see there's a lot of what we call five over two construction which is five stories of wood frame buildings over two stories of concrete that are being erected in Ballard and that neighborhood is in transition.

foresee a need there.

Loyal Heights and then also bringing online Webster Elementary School as part of BTA IV address capacity problems there but they do not resolve our capacity problems.

So was North Beach considered which has a larger campus?

What was proposed in BTA IV or excuse me BEX IV was Loyal Heights.

And so we are looking at North Beach will be definitely being looked at being renovated at a future date in a future BEX program and will definitely be a 660 student school as well.

Is there a need to have a preschool on the Loyal Heights site?

That's currently in our educational specifications.

We've heard the community concerning that.

We are doing some research on that right now as to availability of preschool and costs of the various options that are available outside but that's one topic that has come up that we are researching but at this time I'd also note that those preschool rooms could potentially be used for general education classrooms.

Okay but if there is 660 capacity without them and the elimination would make for more play space is that being considered?

It is being considered and we are looking at a design locating preschool underneath the kindergarten wing down below, similar to a daylight basement.

We believe we could do that.

We do not like its proximity from an educational program standpoint.

We don't like its proximity and so we are studying that at this moment in time.

Its proximity to what?

To the rest of the building.

It is somewhat isolated.

I see.

And it is not great to have the youngest kids in the educational program isolated.

So we're working on that, we are studying that, and we have definitely heard the community's voice in that they would like to see a larger site size for playground in lieu of building.

Director McLaren.

Just a quickie.

Have you heard any community voice defending keeping the preschool there in the plan?

I did not attend the departure meetings.

I did attend the two to three public meetings we had in June and there was one prior to June.

There were three public meetings.

I don't recall at this time Director McLaren hearing anyone defend having preschool there.

Thank you.

Director Blanford.

But it would be a reasonable assumption if there are lots of five over twos, is that what you called them?

Five over two structures, seven story buildings.

If there are lots of five over twos that are being built in that area.

And being allowed to be built in that area.

then we could make a reasonable assumption that there will be a need for preschools as a result?

Yes we could make a reasonable assumption that there would be a need for preschool and we can make a reasonable assumption that capacity will continue to grow in that area.

So would you say that, because I'm trying to understand that issue and I wasn't at the departures meeting.

That the issue is around playground size versus slots for pre-k or space for pre-k programs?

I think the issue is around school size and its compatibility with the adjacent neighborhood.

The adjacent neighborhood is single family residence and this is a 90,000 square foot building in a single family residential neighborhood that is not yet in transition but as you look to the future will one day probably be in transition.

And this is a facility that we are building for 60 years.

So thank you for that, that's helpful.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Director Peasley.

The main concern in addition to the size of the building is the loss of play space and the fact that it's a small lot.

Correct.

And I will note that the play space, we do have elementary schools with much smaller play space than what Loyal Heights will have when we are complete.

Alright so we're at 9.17 and we have another 30 minute session after we're done here.

So let's get to the last item if we could please.

BEX IV procurement of portables and capital improvements made by a tenant while at E.C.

Hughes Elementary.

Let's go to ops first please.

This also came to the committee and it was recommended by the committee to move forward for full board approval.

Thank you.

EC Hughes elementary school we are looking at procuring the portables and some of the capital improvements that a tenant made Westside schools.

while they occupied the building.

This action has a fiscal impact of $525,000 and by board policy 6220 it needs to come before the board for approval.

Westside schools leased the building in 2010 and they moved on to the site nine portable classrooms.

They are in four structures.

Three of the structures are two classrooms and one of the structures is three classrooms.

Those structures are in beautiful condition and they are also tied to sewer and water unlike most of our portables.

They asked if the district would have an interest in purchasing those last summer.

We began negotiations with them because we saw value.

We used the depreciation schedule that the federal government uses for portables.

You have that in your board package.

And then we are also compensating them for some other minor improvements that they made at EC Hughes concerning the flooring that they added to the portables, sprinkler system, and then replacement of windows that they made to the portables.

And we used a 10-year depreciation schedule there.

They also had a playground equipment that they were proposing to relocate.

My experience with relocating playground equipment is not very favorable.

Generally it gets significantly damaged and it cannot be utilized so we proposed purchasing that from them.

They agreed to a 10 year depreciation schedule on the playground equipment and so we've reached agreement on a value of $525,000 for their cost was $1,146,444 for improvements that we said we would consider.

In addition, I will note they were an excellent tenant.

They painted the building and they made some equipment improvements.

They put in a new telephone system.

We said we would not consider those improvements because most likely when we renovate that facility we will be repainting the building even though the paint is five years old.

and will be not utilizing their telephone system because our standards are different.

So they made improvements that will be left in the building but we are not compensating them for as well.

But they were an excellent tenant and I think Seattle Public Schools are getting great value for $525,000 to purchase these nine portables.

Any other questions or comments on this item?

Thank you.

All right.

At the time, the time will be 9.20.

And we are now, we the board, are now immediately recessing the regular board meeting into executive session to evaluate the performance of a public employee, which is scheduled for 30 minutes at an anticipated end time of 9.50.

And so with that, let's go ahead and move quickly into the board office conference room.

Thank you.