Seattle School Board Meeting March 21, 2018 Part 3 B

Thank you.

Other comments questions concerns from my colleagues.

Director Mack.

I just want to read the language really quick.

That's the change.

And.

So at noon on the day before the board meeting public testimony slots will be filled according to the following priority levels on a first come first serve basis within each level.

Number one is individual speaking to an action item on the agenda.

Number two is individual speaking to introduction items on the agenda.

And number three is individuals giving comment of a general nature.

And that sign ups received afternoon on the day before the meeting will be added to the end of the list on a first come first serve basis.

That was that prioritization existed below but it's been stricken and it's clarifying the timing of you know if you come in afternoon then you're going to be added to the end regardless of whether or not it's an action item.

I do think that creates some clarity about the practice and.

Is the waitlist process on here as well because the practice up to 20 it is here it says up to 25 current district students who sign up.

I don't see it on here.

I'm sorry.

Do you do you know if the waitlist process of if you hit if you have more than what 30 people calling in then you bump the list to 25?

It's in the second paragraph.

It's in the second paragraph.

So that's not changing at all.

No.

OK.

Any other comments questions concerns from my colleagues?

Seeing none.

We move on.

Number seven termination of ground lease at the Lake City School.

This came before Ops March 8. This came before March ops March 8th for consideration.

Thank you.

Approval of the item would approve early termination of the lease with Lake City professional building LLC in the payment of the amount of six million one hundred ninety three thousand dollars for the Lake City school to provide for increased flexibility to meet capacity needs of the Seattle Public Schools.

I see Bruce Skowra at the box please.

The floor is yours.

Good evening Bruce Skowra director of facilities.

So I'm here tonight to request board approval to execute an early termination of the lease for the Lake City professional building.

We are in our 10 year renewal period for the lease and the leasee has offered us a one-time purchase option with a payment of $6,193,000.

The current lease for the property runs through 2076 and the purchase option offers us a substantial savings over the buyout language that's currently contained in the lease.

We currently receive about $7000 a month in revenue from the lease.

Based on the current rent roll revenue would increase to approximately $62,000 per month after we execute the purchase.

That's based on keeping the current property management structure in place so we're going to leave everything in place.

Mr. Skowron.

Instead of giving us the numbers here can you talk about why we're doing this, what the history is, what's in it for Seattle Public Schools, pros and cons.

Well the pros and cons, the pros are it's not really a great lease for us.

This lease was negotiated back in 1986 and it hasn't been a real strong lease.

I think the leasee, the general partner is slowing down, he's getting older, wanting to retire, wanting to liquidate.

I think it just offers us some flexibility in the future.

If we do need the building for capacity, currently we don't, but we would see an increase in revenue over the current lease.

So are we essentially land banking then with with the option to if we need it.

to rebuild emergency etc etc with some notice.

And then we have flexibility.

Then we have flexibility.

You know we could also lease the building.

Can you please speak up.

Sure.

Talking really low.

Thank you.

We could also lease the building to somebody else with better lease terms because the current lease really isn't a great lease for us.

And it runs through 2076. OK.

I get that part.

Now.

Would it need to be completely redone or rebuilt on the land and or how many students would it fit?

It's a small site.

It's a small school.

We're probably talking 350 students or less.

We did a feasibility study a few years ago to get the building back to a school and we were looking at that time about 16 million dollars to make it a school again.

Director Mack.

And then director DeWolf.

Hi thank you.

I actually have a I have a series of questions I hope you don't mind going through them just for clarification and background.

Sure.

Just to clarify what you just said from a from a revenue standpoint we currently receive seven thousand a month by buying this back for over six million.

6 6 1 9 3. Yes.

Spending the 6 million.

We would take over the current leases which would yield us 62000 a year.

A month a month.

And.

The cost would be paid back within.

10 years.

But there's a possibility that we could need this in six to seven years based on what the bar says.

So there's a couple I'm wondering what and maybe we don't need this now but I'm wondering what the net loss ends up being over that time.

So that's one question I have is what that what that net loss is of the buyback and the exchange of revenue.

And also I think you know that the answer to this off the top.

There was an offer made to the district some years ago and the board at that time refused it.

And what was that offer?

I believe it was 1.8 million.

And that was I think in 2012.

Right.

So at this point we're.

Real estate is far more expensive than it was 10 years ago.

So we missed out on an opportunity years ago.

However we have to be responsible now with whether or not this is a good deal as well.

So has there been a an assessment of the property condition and whether or not there are any major systems or renovation to the building that would need to be done under our dime after we took it over.

Specifically I see that there was some sort of drainage system corrective action mentioned.

Yeah there is a current drainage condition corrective action.

It's a fairly minor condition that the drain system needs to be basically pumped out cleaned out and they haven't done that work.

Everything else has been updated.

Part of the deal with 2012 was there some major work that needed to be done to the building and he also didn't have the building fully rented at the time.

Because we didn't execute on that he was forced to put a roof on the building and upgrade the HVAC systems.

So we have done a tour of the building.

There also was an appraisal done that lists that the building is in good condition currently.

And the cost of fixing the drainage system is that something that will fall under his dime or ours?

That would be negotiated.

It would need to be done prior to closing.

So if he couldn't do it then we would.

OK.

So along with this bar I think is it appropriate to request that we actually get a copy of the assessment and the cost of this drainage system.

Sure.

Because that should be factored into.

the cost.

Another question I have is around it says the capital fund is where the dollars are coming from but we have several capital funds so specifically which capital fund is this expected to be coming from?

The CEP fund.

And the CEP fund is the fund which stands for?

Capital eligible projects.

It's also where the money from the revenue would go to that we would receive from the from the building.

Excellent.

So to that end as well we have a couple of reports that come periodically to the board related to the use of school facilities and rental rental lease and sale.

One is 4260 and there's a report an annual report for the use of school facilities and activities and rental rates.

When was the last report provided to the board?

I believe it was last June.

We normally do that one in the spring.

I know we're working on that one now.

OK so June and so then can you follow up with a link to that past report to the board.

Sure.

And then the rental lease and sale report of inventory and non-essential properties that's due every three years.

I understand that's due this year from 6 8 8 2. It is.

Do we have a estimated time when that will be coming to the board?

I believe it's going to go to Ops in May.

OK.

Great.

Thank you.

Director DeWolf and then Director Geary.

I just have some process questions here.

My first one is why was this only moved for consideration not approval.

We moved it for consideration because there's a lot to consider.

All of the questions I just asked.

You know this is six million dollars is that's a lot of money to be making a decision on whether and whether or not we actually need this property whether or not this is a wise investment choice is important for the entire board to do its due diligence.

Understood.

My second question is follow up to that which is many of these questions were these not answered in committee.

Were there still hanging questions after that?

Some of these questions were answered and they are answered in the bar.

I think for transparency it's helpful to daylight that here for the entire board to hear.

And so we also in operations still ran an hour over.

We had 14 items and so sometimes in committee we actually don't have the time to go as deep as may need to be done.

So I hope that answers your question.

Thank you.

Director Geary and then Director Burke.

So looking at this property on Google Maps I see that it is right next to the Virgil Flame Park.

It is.

I do know that some of our some of our smaller schools that about parks we end up being able to use that land.

Do you know has there been any discussion with parks around that and the historical relationship between the school and that land?

Used to be ours we sold it to parks.

And we have not had any conversations with parks specifically about this property but we would assume that would fall under the joint use agreement.

Thank you.

Director Burke.

I have questions which maybe this isn't the place to answer because it's related to the the negotiation but it seems like we're paying more than appraised value for something with an essentially a nine to 10 year payoff.

And so that's just without asking you to reply I just wanted to share that that's my point of concern.

And I can respond to that briefly.

We did an appraisal about a year and a half ago because the lease was open for the 10 year period.

I'm fairly confident that the appraisal would come in higher now but we didn't want to spend the money to do another appraisal.

And the other thing to consider is that this wouldn't come open again for another 10 years potentially.

And with the general partner retiring we would probably be looking at 10 years before we have another opportunity to purchase the lease.

I've waited months to be able to use the phrase opportunity cost.

I just wanted to say thanks for the clarification on that.

That's really helpful.

Sure.

Last question at least from this person.

Landmark building.

No I don't believe it is.

No.

OK.

Social media says it is.

OK.

I'd have to check but I wasn't.

Other questions.

Landmark means that it's a whole heck of a lot more experience expensive.

Other comments questions concerns director Pinkham.

So I was looking over this list of the current tenants that are in there too and looks like there possibly could be someone that has that would also be in there until like 2027. Is that the latest that we possibly see currently see getting extended that far.

And then if we hey we need this building by 2022. Are we then going to have to buy out all those other leases as well and how much is that going to cost?

So we would have to buy out the current leases.

The longest lease that's currently in the building is five years.

There's two suites that are currently available that we've told everybody to go ahead and lease if they can.

But they would be five year leases.

We don't really see a need for the building in the next five years.

But if we did have a need then we would have to buy out those leases.

Director Mack.

OK.

Thank you very much.

Next up number eight creation of playground redevelopment fund.

This came before Ops March 8th for.

Consideration.

Approval of this item would request the funding of a playground redevelopment project to pay for playground installations and improvements in the amount of one million dollars.

Can you please speak to the BAR please.

Sure this money would also come from the CEP budget and would be a million dollars that would be set aside for Title 1 schools for schools that didn't have playgrounds that were to current standards and it would give the ability to give funding to those schools that need help.

The most recent example that we had was Highland Park.

And can you speak to the condition of Highland Park and the troubles we have had?

Sure.

Well Highland Park didn't have a playground.

And so they came up with a plan to put in a playground.

Didn't come up with the money that they needed to complete the playground as designed.

So they had to do a redesign.

And they got money from the city and they got money from the county and we had no money to give them.

Right.

Hence the folks in the city and in the county think we don't have our stuff together.

Yes and the million dollars would be money that would be used in addition to Department of Neighborhoods grants and playground grants.

And we would help the people that are applying for these dollars through that process.

Director DeWolf then Director Geary please.

Thank you.

Are there any other community partners that would that would be either potentially or that we are currently working on kind of a collaboration.

It sounds like the city and the county were some partners or there are many to characterize that.

But are there any other folks are doing that business.

We do have some vendors.

I can't recall the names off the top of my head that do work with us and do donate some play equipment.

But our main partners are City of Seattle Department of Neighborhoods and King County Parks.

Director Geary then Director Mack.

If I'm reading this document correctly this was designated a landmark on April 1st 2009. April Fool's.

And I'll give you the number that's LPB 1 6 3 dash 0 9. So we may want to update any background on that.

Thank you.

Excuse me.

You're talking about professional building.

Oh yes I'm sorry.

OK.

Sorry I thought you were talking about the playgrounds.

I was like playgrounds.

That playground is not a landmark.

Let me assure you.

Director Mack thank you for looking that up.

I want to clarify the record before we moved on.

I should have prefaced it.

I appreciate that.

Thank you very much for looking that up.

Director Mack.

So for clarification around how we fund playground development.

How it's been going for some time.

We haven't been funding playground development out of our levies.

Correct.

Have there been any playgrounds that have actually been paid for by levies in the past 10 years.

So all of our new schools get new playground and play equipment.

OK so sometimes it's built into the levy.

In other cases where there are playgrounds that need to be revitalized then the community steps forward does all the work goes to the city asked for the matching grant does all the fundraising.

So you have PTAs PTOs whatever organizations doing that.

And for the Title 1 schools where fundraising is difficult they can be left.

In the lurch.

Correct.

Yes.

So.

One of my questions that we had about this fund is kind of a more logistic question of how it works inside of the district because we have a number of separate funds.

for capital that are related to the levies or the CEP.

And just for clarification the request here if I'm understanding it correctly and correct me if I'm wrong is to actually set up a specific account separate from the levy accounts from the CEP fund that would be dedicated only to playground funds.

That is correct.

Do we have a history of setting up other funds for any specific capital category?

The only one that I'm aware of is our self-help fund which gets thirty thousand dollars a year from capital to kind of work as seed money for some of our self-help projects.

And this would be this would be similar to that.

So it would be a self-help fund that we could tap into to assist these schools in their upgrade process.

Go ahead.

I think I asked this question in committee as well and I'm just trying to wrap my brain around and forgive me for being a little personal here but everybody manages their bank accounts differently and have different accounting processes.

So here we are as a board managing a district bank account.

And my husband likes to every time we have another big something or other he he wants to open up an account and segregate the funds.

Me I'm like we don't need to do we don't need a separate fund.

We just need to account for it.

So I guess I'm kind of I wanting to understand the justification for why we need a separate fund and can't do this through the funds that already exist that we can actually dedicate the money state that we're dedicating the money towards this use.

Why do we need a separate fund in order to make that happen?

Associate Superintendent Herndon please.

Flip Herndon associate superintendent of operations and facilities.

So I believe the impetus for setting this fund up currently is a jumpstart to hopefully in capital levies in the future making sure that there are dollars associated with playgrounds that would be developed not at new schools.

So this is essentially a million dollars to get that started until BEX V. We have playgrounds on BEX V. A million dollars out of BEX V if it's approved would pay back the CEP fund so then you wouldn't have to necessarily segregate that line item.

This is a temporary segregation of dollars until they're paid back and then in the regular cycle of improvements for future capital levies.

Does it strike anyone here rhetorical question that we talk a lot about fresh air and physical education and movement and brain breaks.

But that we've never included playground renovations in our BEX funding.

And just to be sure they have been included in previous BEX proposals but then have been taken out as the prioritization has gone towards other projects on capital.

Hence my rhetorical question.

Yes yes.

Director Burke.

I want to I'm reading through the bar and as I understand that this fund is not for construction it is purely for planning and administration.

Is that appropriate?

No I believe it can be used in conjunction with any other funds like a Department of Neighborhood grants or a county grant for playgrounds so it's not limited to just planning planning it could be used for the actual construction.

Because the the bar states this action allows school communities to participate in the design process of self-help projects without committing general resources of their own.

So it feels like it's targeted towards the planning which is great if it's a way to launch it.

But if we launch it without you know the idea of how does this braid in with other you know.

Which is the Highland Park story.

We're three years behind.

So I just want to be cognizant that if maybe this is part of what we want to do but not all of what we want to do or an incremental step.

I love the idea though.

You know we can try to make that more clear because it is for everything.

Director Pinkham.

And then how long do we expect this fund to exist until it's been all awarded out and you're not putting any limits limit fifty thousand hundred fifty thousand per grant or some say I want to apply for a million dollar grant and it could go out to one person or one school or one self-help group.

And then also it seems like we can find money for this but then Rainier Beach continues to suffer and saying we need to be renovated.

So I would have a question about that.

Then we can put this money up.

Why couldn't we do something for Rainier Beach when they've been asking.

It's one million dollars and seventy five million dollars.

OK.

Thank up.

Excuse me.

Director Geary please.

I just want to note the responsiveness of this bar to an issue that you've raised President Harris and I appreciate that.

And I want to say personally thank you and associate superintendent Herndon is probably really glad not to be getting my and council member Herbold's phone calls on a regular basis because when there is a will there is a way.

Director Mack.

I want to follow back up on.

Thank you.

I wanted to follow back on Director Pinkham's question about the grant and how the grants would be decided.

Did I miss it that it's actually defined in here how those grants will be administered.

Or is that something that we should actually be clear about before we're because in effect if I understand this BAR which I'm supportive of the intent we are making before we actually consider all of BEX V we are making a commitment that a million dollars will be included in the BEX V and all the other prioritization lists there that we're not talking about this million dollars in that context right now.

If we approve this we will be approving a million dollars essentially and a grant program that I would think needs some definition that would be helpful of how that's going to be administered.

So is there a way to get that grant program a little more defined?

So this wouldn't be a grant program we would follow the grant program we'd follow the guidelines of the neighborhood matching funds for playgrounds.

But this that would be separate money.

So this would be the district's portion of the city of Seattle Department of Neighborhoods and King County.

Grants.

and it would go through our normal kind of self-help approval process for a project with helping them through that grant process as well.

Another portion of this is as you've seen over the years many of the self-help projects come to the board for approval because typically the total dollar amount exceeds two hundred fifty thousand dollars.

In that breakout you would see where these dollars are being used in that grant.

You're right.

It's not an unlimited pot and we're hoping again that this is a temporary measure and that we can include renewal of playgrounds on a regular basis into the capital levy cycles.

But in this case when a self-help program or a self-help project would come your way and you're receiving as the school board you are approving a grant from the city or from the county for this.

We would talk about how the matching portion or whatever portion the school needs to provide is being used out of this particular fund.

So you would have a heads up whenever that money is being used.

Go ahead please.

I think I'm a little concerned about the community engagement and access and schools knowing that they have access to this fund and how do they learn about it and how do they.

I mean there's there's a bunch of pieces.

This is a really exciting thing to do to be able to support our schools.

And.

I'm the community engagement aspect of how you know who in the self-help projects that we've got going now it's a there's an organization behind it there's some nonprofit that's sponsoring it.

So then for these Title 1 schools who's the nonprofit that is sponsoring it to go after the grant funding.

Is it the district?

Yes we would assist them in getting grant dollars.

I think that the plan would be once the board approved the money in the fund that we would make an announcement work through our communications team.

Let the schools know that this money is available and the help for them to apply for these grants is available and that they can apply through the self-help process.

I apologize for being a pest on this but the who is important here because all of the self-help projects right now are sponsored by another nonprofit organization.

So who is it that is going what nonprofit is going to be the ones at Title 1 schools if they don't have a PTA or I mean how are we identifying the actual entity that is going to be.

Isn't that part of building leadership and the principals.

So if again taking Highland Park as an example.

Highland Park and their building based leadership Chris Cronus went out work with community members work with Seattle City Council members work with King County Council members to get that funding.

And in that case was it the school itself.

It is the school itself.

Absolutely.

It is a school itself.

OK.

That's the answer is my question that if the school can be the entity.

Under which.

And it's the BLT that's the representation or whoever I believe so it needs to be clear as to who the entity is that is.

Accepting the funds and that to get them two thirds of the way there.

And then to leave them high and dry.

Seems.

Ironic.

and irresponsible.

And again I appreciate the creativity and I feel completely fine about taking a million dollars off the top for BEX V because a million dollars in the context of BEX V frankly isn't very darn much money.

So I'm I'm good with it.

Am I biased?

You bet I am.

But I find it highly ironic that we talk about recess and brain breaks.

And we treat our Title 1 schools very differently.

Director Geary.

My gut is that our voting population would be in a line with using this money and a million dollars is just nothing towards something that is so visible.

from anybody who goes by our schools and so to treat our schools and to treat our city with at least this is something that I think is good if not needing more.

Director Burke and then I want to time check.

It is 745. We are presently on number eight of 18 introduction items.

Take the hint.

I want to be cognizant of the conversation here that a million dollars.

What's its meaning in the context of the BEX but also in the context of the projects that we have to do.

Can you share approximately or exactly whatever you have.

What's the cost of an Ed spec playground.

Just so we can million dollars divided by what.

So that's going to depend.

So I think your typical playground probably is about two hundred fifty thousand dollars.

But this portion doesn't mean that we could only fund four playgrounds.

So the cost share sure there's other sources depending on the additional grants or private donors.

It might be forty thousand dollars that the school is trying to come up with.

So this is really to assist not to be the only necessarily the only source of.

income to be able to purchase a new playground.

Thanks.

Please.

So I was wondering what other things are paying for playgrounds since I hear that you're talking about several state and city.

Grants.

From what I can tell and I'm sorry I don't have the.

Yeah well our playgrounds are very much a neighborhood resource in our our students use the play toys during school hours but the community and the neighborhoods use them after hours on weekends over the summer.

So that's why we get money from the Department of Neighborhoods and also from King County because they're very much a community resource as well as a district resource.

And how much of the cost comes from those outside resources?

Typically 60 to 70 percent.

Thank you very much.

OK.

We are on number nine recommendation to award contracts for furniture procurement for 2018 to 2020 bid number.

B 0 1 8 3 4. This came to Ops March 8th for.

Consideration.

Approval of this item would establish a competitively bid furniture catalog from which capital projects and schools can order furniture.

Take it away.

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

We competitively bid the furniture.

You might remember we had brought a bar to you earlier this year.

Our hope with our furniture selection process is that we could limit the amount of contracts that we enter into.

We have been successful on cutting that number almost in half.

We will have one additional contract to bring forth to you.

We did not have a responsive bidder for our secondary schools and they would also be providing the office furniture so we are rebidding that portion of this contract.

You are awarding four contracts greater than two hundred fifty thousand dollars and that we did note a contract amount in there.

There will be a fifth contract that is under two hundred fifty thousand dollars.

The contract period is for a duration of three years and it we highlighted the furniture that we'd be purchasing for our BEX and BTA IV projects.

We did an extrapolation for those project schools in which we anticipate will have.

enrollment needs over the next three years.

And then we also allowed a contingency of 10 percent in the contract amount because we know that schools will also utilize this and they will not come through the capital projects office they will just reach out directly to our purchasing office to purchase a file cabinet to replace you know a desk chair to replace a broken table.

So we've put an allotment in there.

We can use.

We are not bound to use the amounts stipulated but we can use up to those amounts stipulated and then we'd have to revise those amounts by change or at a future date if we were to exceed those contract amounts.

So would open this up to your questions.

Any questions or comments from directors.

Seeing none I have a quick one.

The bidders that are responsive to this are they current.

We have current subcontracts with them and do we have feedback on the furniture they're providing the quality of that.

You know.

Do we do we feel good about that?

Several of these suppliers that are listed here for the manufacturers we do have current contracts with.

Yes.

And we had a very lengthy vetting process with staff to make sure that we were happy with the furniture.

Director Burke that we are providing.

Thank you very much.

Next item item number 10 purchase of student and staff computers for the new BEX IV schools BTA projects K-3 class size reduction and enrollment growth capacity classrooms opening summer 2018 came to Ops March 8th.

For consideration the committee noted that there is a need for clarification on the numbers of students and why what what specifically is being.

It was funding we had the wrong we had BTA III cited and it was actually BTA IV funding.

Director Mack.

For the record approval of this item would approve the purchase of student and staff computers for a total amount not to exceed $1,200,000 for levy projects and the needed enrollment growth classrooms in K-3 class size reduction classrooms opening summer 2018.

Best So correct this will fund our technology purchase for Loyal Heights elementary school, E.C.

Hughes elementary school, then our enrollment capacity projects and then also our K3 class size reduction projects.

At the bottom, well excuse me, you have your bars electronically, what this will provide on a classroom model basis is a teacher laptop a desktop computer for the presentation cart in the classroom and then an allotment of 16 computer student laptops for use in that classroom and then the cart in which the student computers get plugged into each night.

Director Mack.

I greatly appreciate the chart now that has the school the number of desktops carts laptops etc.

I appreciate that information.

The enrollment growth capacity is TBD.

Can you explain that a little bit more.

Well I would note that we're not through our full open enrollment period but we do have projections in here based upon the current capacity planning that we're doing.

We'll get those final numbers.

Director Mack 1st of April.

So.

And they'll be in this bar in the TBD of the number of.

I'll make sure that we get those.

I see.

OK.

So OK.

I'm just wondering that that we know the range.

OK.

Thank you.

Cedric.

So I was wondering what what's the actual class size since I know that you said that there were 16 laptops I believe per class.

Well that has been historically what we have provided.

Our class sizes vary.

Kindergarten through third grade are going down to 17 to 1 for high poverty schools 20 to 1 for non high poverty schools next year.

And then our secondary school fourth and fifth grade I believe are 25 to 1 and then our secondary schools are at 30 to 1. We provide one additional because we know that sometimes we have more than 30 kids in a classroom.

But it is 16 computers per class correct?

Correct.

And are those being shared among the entire school or is it just in that classroom?

These are for that classroom and I would have to go back and ask Department of Technology services because we've just reduced the class sizes next year if that would continue to be their model.

Because K through 3. I don't know what that model if that model has been adjusted that historically has been the model we purchased through for last year.

Because having 16 computers for more than 16 students doesn't seem helpful for a class.

That's all.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Point of point of clarification just to share we have a an educational specification that determines sort of by ratio or by size of size of building size of class what the allocation is.

But then at the building level they have the flexibility to to reallocate and deploy in different ways depending on what their programs are.

That's helpful.

Thank you.

And I will get that clarified and we'll note a ratio for the students.

Any other questions or comments on this item?

Hearing none.

Next item number 11 BEX IV Authorization of settlement change order number 25 to contract P 5 0 3 4 with Leidig construction company for the Cascadia elementary school Licton Springs K-8 school and Robert Eagle Staff middle school formerly Wilson Pacific project.

This came before Ops on March 8th for consideration.

Approval of this item would allow the efficient and timely payment of completed work to most of the subcontractors thereby decreasing the risk of potential future claims against the district.

Change order number 25 is in the amount of nine hundred and thirty three thousand seven hundred and eighty eight dollars plus Washington state sales tax.

So I will just note that change order number 25 represents 113 change order proposals.

We are incorporating those into this one change order.

As the bar indicates and as the attached memo from SOJ indicates it has been difficult to get subcontractor pricing on on change order proposals.

I know that Leidig sent a letter to the subcontractors giving them until the end of August of 2017 to provide change order proposal pricing.

I know that for many of these change order proposals they did not receive complete change order proposal pricing from the subcontractors.

Our contract does allow for the district to unilaterally determine a cost.

We did not implement that approach.

We sat down with Leidig, negotiated an amount and then took a discount which is articulated in the memo and the background information.

This will be the next to last change order for this project we have one outstanding issue with the electrical contractor that we are working on to resolve.

Initial construction contingency was $7,522,270 for Wilson Pacific.

All three schools both buildings on this campus.

And we are.

We have not come anywhere near close to spending that.

Thank you.

Questions comments.

Director Geary.

This is not a change order that I.

No you have not seen this change order Director Geary.

I made mention of it at our meeting last week when we reviewed change order or when we last met when we reviewed change order 24 that this one would be coming to the to the school board.

OK.

OK.

Our next item.

is item 12.

Bex IV award construction contract P 5 0 9 5 to Coast to Coast Turf Inc. for the Eckstein Middle School athletic field and jogging track improvements.

This came to Ops March 8th for.

Approval approval of this item would provide authorization for the superintendent to enter into a construction contract for seven hundred fifty two thousand nine hundred twenty two dollars for the replacement of the synthetic turf and resurfacing and the jogging track at Eckstein Middle School.

So we'd be replacing the synthetic turf.

We would be resurfacing the jogging track.

This work would be performed during the summer.

This was a competitively bid project and we're recommending this be awarded.

We have utilized the cork infill.

Thank you.

For those of you all who are new to the board we had quite the dust up about rubberized track and cork and our staff went back to the drawing board and found a great alternative.

Director Geary.

I'm going to thank you for that.

And in part because that is one of the fields that does some of the heavy lifting for the little kids soccer and just seeing all those little kids and all their little siblings crawling around on the crumb rubber given the concerns.

I know this this this will be appreciated and the visuals really important.

So thank you.

Director Burke.

I don't see it here but can you describe the differential for the cork infill material.

I think that we all recognize that it's a good thing but I think for the record we should understand the value of that good thing that we're committing to.

So we bid three different infills cork was the base bid.

We also bid TPE thermal polyethylene that actually would add for the low bidder that would add to this contract amount $106,618 plus Washington state sales tax.

The SBR infill on this field on the low bidder would save $109,000 $765 $109,765 plus Washington sales tax.

Thank you for always being on the spot with numbers.

Director Geary.

This is not a field that has nighttime lighting correct?

Correct.

And is that something that we should be looking at to expand field usage?

It was raised a point was raised to me that I think is a good one is that when Lincoln opens.

Woodland Park is going to become even more congested which is going to have a pretty strong negative impact on Roosevelt high schools use of fields.

And while Roosevelt has the one field it's a lot of a lot of users for that one field.

So I am I am wondering has there been consideration to putting lights onto the external field so that we would have more fields to use in the northeast.

I will check to see if we've provided the conduit.

I think we've provided the pathway but we haven't gone through the cities.

departure or process for providing the lights there.

But I will I'll need to confirm that and get back to you.

And to follow up on her question in other renovation scenarios we've laid that conduit to.

set it up for the future is that correct?

Correct.

We've done that at Whitman we've done that at Robert Eagle Staff and we're actually erecting the field lights at Robert Eagle Staff.

We're currently going through a departure process at Robert Eagle Staff because one of the lights is in the property set back.

But we have set up those contracts and I just want to make sure we've done that here too.

Director Mack and Director DeWolf did you have your hand up?

Oh got it.

Thank you sir.

I wanted to note that we had suggested this from committee for approval and to the consent agenda.

However one of the things that we did ask for that I'm not sure happened in the editing was to really clarify that cork is the selected material in the way that this bar is written is still a little confusing to me when I read it because it talks about the base bid and bids numbers three and four and I'm just.

If we could be loud and proud about this.

I want to be loud and proud about the fact that it's cork and we are stating that.

Well it's in there it's just a little.

Yeah.

Maybe in the paragraph that.

OK is public facing.

OK.

I will revise this.

I want you to know that the Edmonds school district passed their resolution because of us.

And I got friends there and I really was proud of us.

So I will.

Thank you.

Make that more clear.

OK.

Number 13 and we have a time check it's 8 0 5. BTA 3 and BEX 4 award construction contract K 5 0 9 5 to Bailey construction for the Leschi and Lowell elementary schools seismic improvement and exterior door replacement project came to Ops March 8th for.

Consideration.

Approval of this item would provide authorization for the superintendent to enter into a construction contract for the construction of seismic improvements at Leschi and Lowell Elementary schools and replacement of exterior doors at Lowell Elementary in the amount of three hundred fifty one thousand dollars plus Washington state sales tax questions comments concerns.

Director DeWolf.

Thank you President Harris.

My first question actually yes it is a question.

Can you briefly just share what the earthquake retrofit improvements are going to look like.

So that at these schools we are pinning the existing masonry on the exterior of the building to the structure.

So around doorways.

so that if you're exiting the building, that masonry would not collapse in a seismic event.

It would actually be pinned to the structure.

And you do that by using a helical anchor through the mortar joint.

I'm going to try to use that in a sentence next tomorrow.

I love that phrase.

And my second question is what will this work mean for the normal operations of these two schools or is it going to take place during the school year?

It's going to take place this summer.

I'm not familiar but I imagine the project manager has engaged in the conversations with the building principals to make sure there are not summer construction activities or if there are summer construction activities that are summer excuse me summer school activities that it's highlighted in the work plan so it's drawn to the contractors attention during bidding so they're aware that they cannot impact school.

But I haven't had that level of conversation with our project manager but our project managers are very sensitive to the fact that we're an educational institution.

So that comes first.

Other questions comments concerns.

Seeing none we move on.

Number 14 BTA 3 BTA 4 award contract K 5 0 9 7 for the Chief Sealth International High School needs to be added to the bar here.

on the public facing piece Southwest athletic complex track and field improvement project.

Ops March 8th for.

Consideration.

Correct.

Approval of this item would award a contract to the King County Directors Association KCDA to support the Southwest athletic complex track and field improvement project in the scheduled value amount of one million four hundred eighty five thousand seven hundred fourteen dollars plus Washington state sales tax.

So this is a project that we did not competitively bid.

We utilized our relationship with KCDA and the purchasing cooperative.

This is a project that the principal at Chief Sealth International High School Thank you.

Asked that we work around graduation.

We were originally thinking of relocating their graduation.

She said no.

Graduation is a significant event for these students.

They need to have it there.

It created some timing issues for us.

So we brought the contractor on board to figure out how to sequence this project generally when you do Field and track replacements you want to do the field first and then do the track Working your way out so that folks when they're doing the track aren't on the field We are actually sequencing this project differently in May we intend and I'm going to highlight this weather pending in May we intend to resurface the track and In June we'll have the graduation ceremony as soon as the graduation ceremony is over we will then go into replacing the turf and be ready for football mid-August.

I am going to answer Director Burke's question on the previous and just note on this project we also bid that the three infill materials TPE had an added cost of $81,000.

Cork and this is a larger field had just had a excuse me.

TPE had an added added cost of $81,000.

The SBR had a credit of $54,034.

So this is slightly different than what you saw in the competitively bid.

But there was a and this is a much larger field than Eckstein's.

So.

District 6 thanks you.

OK.

Not seeing any questions comments or concerns.

We move to number 15 BTA for approval of the project budget increase modification to the architectural and engineering services A slash E contract P 1 4 1 6 with TCF architecture an amendment to the general contractor slash construction manager GC slash GM CM contract K 5 0 7 3 with BN builders for the Webster school modernization and addition project ops.

March 8th for.

Consideration.

Approval of this item would approve a transfer of six million dollars in the buildings technology and academics athletics BTA IV capital levy program contingency and the BTA IV Webster school modernization and addition project budget.

In addition this motion would authorize the superintendent to execute a contract modification for six hundred forty three thousand five hundred sixty seven dollars with TCF architecture for additional design and construction administration fees and a contract amendment with BN builders to increase the guaranteed maximum price GMP to twenty three million nine hundred thousand dollars.

The floor is yours.

Yes.

Thank you.

So this was a school that was initially built in 1908. The architect is Frederick Sexton.

It was part of our BTA IV capital levy.

And when we went out to the public to advise the public as to how we were going to utilize this school.

we indicated that we would be utilizing it as an elementary school.

At this moment in time the school, the existing school does not have a gym.

It has two, I'm going to call it two large covered play areas on the north side of the building.

When sitting down with our architect and GCCM construction managers they have indicated that this project with the gym will exceed the allocated project budget.

The allocated project budget in capital levy BTA IV was $31,737,094.

They've indicated it will exceed the budget by approximately six million dollars when you look at additional architects fees additional permit costs and the ramifications of that.

This board action as director Harris read will actually do three things that will increase the project budget.

It will increase the amount that we will be compensating the architect and that it will increase the amount.

that we'll be compensating the GCCM contractor.

What we will get for this increase is a gymnasium on the west side of this building.

If you were not to improve to approve this bar we would not have a gymnasium.

We'd be able to go through go forth with the project but we would not have a gymnasium on the west side of the building.

So.

Quick question.

Why didn't we include the gymnasium in earlier?

We did include the gymnasium.

Construction costs have just increased.

Director Harris such that this would this project as defined would require an infusion of capital of six million dollars.

Director Mack.

Can you elaborate a little bit on the current public engagement process around the departures.

Community engagement.

What meetings have been going on where we are in the process.

I'm hearing from community members rumbling of discontent around the process and various issues.

So if you could tell me kind of what's happened so far and what meetings are upcoming.

So I know that we had a departure meeting on.

Monday for Webster.

Just let me just Monday.

Yeah.

We had a departure meeting on Monday for Webster.

We had several departure meetings this week.

That's why I wanted to clarify.

But we had a departure meeting on Monday.

I can't comment.

I did not attend that meeting so I can't comment on the tone of that meeting.

I do know that this is a meeting that the city of Seattle puts on.

It's not a meeting that Seattle Public Schools leads.

So.

This is Director Patu.

So when you say the several you've had several departure meetings is that our meetings or is that the city's meetings?

Departure meetings are the city of Seattle's meetings.

We have also had some public outreach meetings but that was long ago.

As we were in the schematic design phase.

I know I'm going to look.

Let me invite Eric Becker up to talk about the public engagement process.

So are we part of the city actually invite us to those meetings.

Correct.

The city and the city coordinates with us to attend those meetings.

Except the Green Dot Middle School.

Yes they did not invite us to that.

Thank you.

Director Mack go ahead.

Yeah and just for clarification departures are things that the district is asking for.

These are there's code around the buildings when we're building that says you can only have so much parking or you can't have school buses here you can't do lot coverage whatever.

So we're making the request for the departure from code.

And it's the surrounding community that's you know likely to say no we don't like that or whatever and that and it's the city's jurisdiction and responsibility to hold those meetings.

But the genesis of the meetings is our request for departures.

So they're not our meetings but they're meetings that are happening because of.

Our work and our requests.

So I'd amplify your comment Director Mack and say that the city of Seattle does not have a school zone.

And most of our schools are located in single family residential neighborhoods or low rise low rise one low rise two.

And so.

To build a school in those zones almost.

I can't can't think of a project in which we're building a school in which we haven't had departure requests with maybe the exception of Ingram high school.

You just actually highlighted something that I'm not sure I had really clicked in my brain before.

And it makes me excited that we have this new partnership agreement with the city.

Because the fact that there is no school zone in zoning is actually really interesting.

So we're like not even on the map in terms of the perception.

And it's not surprising they didn't invite us to holla and MHA.

There are four departures that we almost routinely request that our schools building height parking bus bus offloading in public right away and they are locked coverage.

Thank you.

Oh you said lock coverage.

Yeah.

OK.

So I'm going to allow Eric Becker to talk about the public engagement process.

Good evening Eric Becker with Capital Projects.

I believe if I recall properly we had one community meeting with the with the community for Webster prior to our departure process.

So at that point we shared the project.

We also had a our state environmental policy act meeting for Webster school.

So the environmental study and sharing that information and receiving public comment for that portion of the project.

Director Pinkham were you next?

What is the lot size?

Do we own the whole block that the school's on or do we cut off at Webster Park?

Or what is our footprint on this lot?

And where would the outdoor play space go for this if we turn it to elementary school and how big of an elementary school are we looking at?

Best So as Bruce Scour indicated for the Lake City property we at one time owned Webster Park.

We sold that to the parks district.

We have had conversations and I've participated in the conversations with park district about our plans surrounding Webster elementary school.

They're very much aware our joint use agreement will be amended to include Webster Park by definition when we bring the school online.

And the lot size I believe is 1.9 1.5 acres.

The gymnasium is going to be located to the west of the historic structure with a connection in between.

Pinkham And what size of an elementary school are we looking at?

We're looking at an elementary school that would house roughly 350 to 400 kids depending on class size and grade levels.

Director Mack and then Director DeWolf.

OK.

Thank you.

Yeah to clarify it's 17 classrooms correct?

There's I believe 19. 19.

So it's relatively small.

There's 17 general ed classrooms.

Then there's two special education classrooms.

And then we have an art science classroom and a music platform.

So there's actually 20 classrooms.

That information we did add to the bar.

Director Harris.

No I'm sorry I was just clarifying that last thing and then my.

I actually wanted to.

Last comment and thank you for the work on all of this because it's so much.

One thing that I realize has been a gap in communication is around.

Making sure folks know that these community meetings are happening or these departure meetings.

And so a request that I'm going to be making is that we're going to be slotting these meetings onto ops agendas as upcoming meetings of interest for operation related things and also making sure that they show up on my personal calendar so I'm aware of them.

Just want to let people know that logistically we're going to help close the gap on folks knowing these meetings are happening.

Director Burke and then Director DeWolf.

The elephant that is either in the room or in my brain is that the bar states this you know the intent through the BEX plan for this to be open as an elementary school There have been conversations about other uses and it doesn't feel like we have formally converged on how capacity and long term planning leverage this building and yet timeline for implementation construction documents April through August of 2018. That's next month.

And so that's my concern.

Something that's going to open in 2020. And we don't have a clear I don't think we have a clear seven person like we know what this is going to be used and we can communicate to our community what that is.

So Director Burke let me highlight two items for you on that.

One is we had a conversation with the design architect as to if this building could be potentially utilized for a secondary school.

His recommendation was strongly that it be utilized for an elementary school.

Second item I'm going to highlight is and when I say elementary school I mean elementary school potentially K-8 school as well.

That's why we're designing the art classroom so they can also be utilized for a science classroom.

He strongly recommended against utilizing it for a secondary school.

Second thing I would note is and you are going to receive this information in the work session package that you receive on Friday for the work session on March 28. We have significant needs in the Whitman middle school service area for elementary schools.

Students.

We need space for those students.

This is just part of the solution.

It will by no means resolve.

our elementary student population needs in Whitman service area.

So this is only part of the mosaic of the solution for that area that we are going to have to come up with.

So.

Director DeWolf is next and then Director Mack.

Go ahead Director Mack.

I appreciate Director Burke for bringing that very question up and for the response.

There's a lot of stuff happening in 2019 and three more buildings opening people moving back into their buildings.

And in 2020 there's another three buildings and so there's a lot going on that's in the works that some things that the board is going to have to make decision on around boundaries.

You know for Webster it's going to need a boundary or it's going to be needed as an option school and it's.

So my hope is that we can get ahead of our kind of short term and intermediate term.

capacity issues that we already know about.

And I've requested to have a work session specifically to daylight for 2019 school year which we'll need to vote on in November.

Here are the things that are coming down the pike and here are the processes we're going to be going through in order to make those decisions.

For example Magnolia Elementary will be opening.

And Webster also for the 2020 there's a number of buildings there that I think we need to start looking forward and having this conversation.

So hopefully at the end of April or beginning of May we will have that work session and get some more clarity and board conversation around those issues.

Were you wishing to speak to this?

Yeah please.

Maybe it's just a conspiracy theory person in my head.

Not an elephant.

But when I heard K through 8 option school I immediately thought of Licton Springs and then you talk about the capacity at Robert Eagle Staff.

I hope this is going to be let's move Licton Springs to Webster.

And then to allow then Robert Eagle Staff to grow because then moving that school once again.

I think it's going to do disservice to Licton Springs.

Again I'm not saying this is going to happen but that's what clicked in my mind.

It would also be directly oppositional to what the board asked for and it would break trust.

And I think folks are more sophisticated and smarter than that.

OK.

Number 16. Resolution 2017 18 dash 15 acceptance of the building commissioning report for the Olympic Hills elementary school replacement project ops.

March 8th for.

Consideration.

Approval of this item would accept the building commission report for the Olympic Hills elementary school replacement project.

Yes so as part of the closeout process for our large projects we need to get board approval that on the commissioning aspects have been complete.

We need to report to you that it has been complete.

I can tell you we have two mechanical electrical coordinators, Mike McBee and Mike Kennedy, they oversee our commissioning process, they work with a third party to implement commissioning of our building systems such that these systems work in the manner in which they were designed when they were engineered.

And confirm that the contractor and the various subcontractors involved have these systems working as designed.

And so we're recommending this be approved by you so that we can move this forward for completion.

Director Mack.

I actually wanted to point out I think this got put into the minutes incorrectly and then on the agenda incorrectly.

I have it noted as a recommendation for approval and then to go straight to the consent agenda.

This is one of those kind of celebratory sorts of things.

This is an amazing building brought online successfully.

But we don't need to spend much more time on it I don't think.

Other questions comments concerns taking her guidance into consideration.

And if Mike McBee approves of it I probably do too.

He's a tough guy.

He is.

He's very and rightly so.

Yes he is very thorough.

Number 17 BEX IV resolution 2017 slash 18 16 intent to construct Wing Luke elementary school replacement project ops March 8th for.

Approval.

Approval of this item would approve resolution 2017 18 dash 16 which certifies the intent of the Seattle Public Schools to construct the Wing Luke elementary school replacement project.

Yes this again is a requirement by OSPI.

It's primarily a formality but it is that we do intend to construct Wing Luke elementary school.

OK not seeing any questions comments or concerns.

We are at the last agenda item number 18 BTA 3 BEX 4 final acceptance of contract K 5 0 6 4 Bates roofing LLC for the Leschi Elementary School re-roof project ops March 8th for.

Approval of this item would approve final acceptance of contract K 5 0 6 4 with Bates roofing LLC for the Leschi elementary school re-roof project.

So this work was implemented in the summer of 2016. All close out activities are complete and we are recommending your acceptance so we can submit our final paperwork to the three state agencies in which we need to submit final paperwork in order to release retainage.

Seeing no questions comments and concerns this meeting is adjourned at 830. Thanks all very much.

you