Seattle School Board Meeting Oct. 17, 2018 part 2

you

have a quorum and we are going to continue.

Number C 1 action item the only action item this evening.

BTA IV approval of technology purchases to support student learning through new instructional practices.

This came before C&I September 11th for.

Consideration.

Motion please.

This is a doozy.

Hang on everyone.

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute purchase orders through RFP number 0 7 7 9 2 with Dell Thornburg for a total not to exceed amount of five hundred and fifty thousand dollars over fiscal years 2018 19 in the form of the order requests attached to the board action report with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the purchase orders.

I second the motion.

OK and I might add that what is showing up on your screen is the last action item on firearm safety that we did pass unanimously.

I'm happy to say in any event we have just heard this motion.

Who is presenting this evening.

We had a robust conversation during intro so I trust we'll make it short.

And this is on the web.

Yes.

So this purchase as was mentioned is in support of the implementation of high school revisioning and the implementation of the 24 credit graduation requirement.

As you know many of our teachers have been participating in professional development in the use of instructional tools like technology and in order to be able to teach in longer instructional blocks, deeper learning in preparation for implementation of schedule changes for the 19-20 school year.

Also noted in the board action report is information that speaks to the fact that as students as teachers implement this professional development it gives students the ability to meet the new state adopted educational technology standards.

So this is really in support of the teacher's ability to apply their new learning in terms of use of instructional technologies.

Questions comments concerns from my colleagues Director Burke and then Director Patu.

Thank you for for presenting.

One question.

I know that this was carefully thought out and there's a lot of engagement with the building leaders around how they shaped their their technology plans.

Were those conversations coupled to the idea of a modified 7 schedule or some type of alternate high school schedule.

Yes it was.

However understand that what we're really wanting to do is change high school instructional practices to better prepare our students for post-secondary experiences.

Many of our high schools are already teaching a longer instructional blocks.

They modified current schedules.

So this actually supports current efforts and future goals as we move forward to changing schedules for the 19-20 school year.

Director Patu and then Director DeWolf.

Is this for all high schools?

All of the comprehensive high schools.

Yes it is actually for all high schools in support as they submit their plans for review and approval by our central office.

Not for middle school it's just for high school.

Correct not for middle schools this is for high schools.

OK thank you.

I just had a question.

This is a contract which will be with Dell and Thorburgh and we have a report.

that was created or funded by Dell and it's called the principles for effective digital learning.

Do you feel like we're going to have any what's the right word conflict of interest.

I'm not going to have to defer to our to John Krull to help answer that particular question.

Well he's coming to the box.

It was pointed out during public testimony that in the board action report it references two different costs five hundred twenty thousand and five hundred fifty thousand.

Do we have any feedback on that or is that considered a Scrivener's error.

Mr. General Counsel.

I can speak to that.

So the calculations add up to approximately five hundred and twenty thousand.

But what's in the line item is actually not to exceed five hundred and fifty thousand.

So it gives a little bit of flexibility in the purchase.

But so the actual amount for this bar board action report is five hundred and fifty thousand.

Is it five hundred fifty thousand or not to exceed five hundred fifty not to exceed five hundred.

Thank you.

Mr. Krull could you address the Dell piece and an apparent conflict of interest.

Right.

That's addressed in the published document when we did the request for proposals for a standard computer so that went out to bid.

When Thornburg responded they offered 30 days of professional development.

along with their response as an added to what we were purchasing or the contract that we're going into because they recognized rightly so that when we roll out technology professional development is important.

So when we were reviewing that and they won they won the contract.

regardless of that.

But when we had the 30 days of professional development we were like well what are our needs for professional development.

So Dr. Kinoshita and I were like we need you know what the board had been asking for a theory of action.

You know what's our research behind it.

So the research is actually not from Dell or not from Thornburg.

They actually hired.

advanced learning partners who is helping with our professional development and they got a got a doctor of education who's a known researcher named John Ross who put together the research.

So so really it's pretty it's not connected to Dell.

It's connected to the professional development that we're doing.

Director DeWolf.

Just as a follow up.

So what we're going what we are likely moving toward action for if we're going to approve this is is that the adoption of that document with those seven principles because that's outlined here within this bar.

So.

Just try to see how.

No no.

The research.

This is just a specifically a purchase to support the revision plan.

The document is just just what it is to kind of help us if we're going to do professional development.

What's kind of the anchor of our professional development.

We're really trying to get what's the appropriate way to use technology in the classroom and that's helping.

along with the ed tech standards.

Those those are going to be what we consider our foundation documents.

But you know their their foundation they're not the specifics.

OK cool.

And my only follow up comment is that.

Understand that we're just we're just here to either approve this five hundred fifty thousand dollar fiscal cost.

But I just want to raise that the at least that document as it is the principles for effective digital learning doesn't really touch on race or equity.

And so if we're going to move forward on any more documentation I just hope we're more thoughtful about including those topics.

Thank you.

Other questions comments concerns.

Director Burke.

Thank you Director DeWolf for for bringing that up.

I think this was one of the topics that was discussed at the at the ITAC Information Technology Advisory Committee and I I share what I think I heard is your concern.

I'm I'm comfortable going on record that I am not completely in belief in alignment with these seven principles as a guiding principles board approved guiding principles.

I think that this document has some some interesting relevant information but I think it also has some conflicting information within it and so it should be treated as a resource.

It should not be treated as policy policy or guiding principles in any way.

Seeing no further comments questions concerns excuse me Director Pinkham.

When we look at the cost for 24 — I had to go back to the front I was trying to see if I could find it in the supporting documents 50 per laptop for imaging.

It is my understanding that it means like what you're going to put on the computers or all the computers have the same software.

Do we then when we put these computers out to pasture and we have to wipe them clean I assume.

Do we do that ourselves or do we have to then contract that out to someone else.

In other words is there a way we can eventually do our imaging ourselves.

We do do our imaging ourselves.

But part of the purchase process it's much more efficient with the brand new computers to get them image and they're all set up ready to go.

They're actually put in carts.

And it's a turnkey solution to to deliver them.

And then when we do do eventually dispose of computers the hard drives are wiped.

So they're safe.

But but we do our own imaging like once they're once they're in in production.

One thing that we're really investing in is central management.

So like when a computer has a problem it can just be quickly imaged from central.

Seeing no further excuse me Director Patu.

Now is this only for high school or is it also middle school.

This is for high school.

All our high schools.

All the high schools are getting funds for technology.

This is part of what's being spent the ones who have turned in their plans.

And there's there's other technologies other than just computers.

This is the part that's the computers.

When you say turn in their plan is that the high schools is responsible for turning in their plan in order for them to get.

Yes yes we want one part of our model that we're developing here and this is the first part that we're experimenting with is we want schools to have the autonomy to pick what they want to augment their technology.

But we want it to be tied to their CSIPs.

So they need to turn in.

They need to explain how their technology is supporting their instructional program.

So if they don't come up with a plan what does that mean.

Does that mean that they don't get any computers.

We're helping them come up with plans so.

So what are you doing to actually to make sure that they hear that loud and clear that they have to have plans in order for them to be able to get computers.

So this is work that we've been engaged with the high school principals for a period of time in terms of the high school revisioning.

And so this is in direct support of that.

What's unique about this as well is you know a lot of times we will have schools where teachers participate in professional development when the use of technology But then they get back to their classroom and they don't have the technology to actually apply that new learning.

And then there are other times we apply we provide lots of technology but then they don't have the professional development to know how to effectively use it.

In this case we put those two together.

The teachers have actually received the professional development necessary to apply in their instructional practice and the resources to to follow through on that.

Thank you.

OK speak now or forever.

Roll call please.

Director Burke aye Director DeWolf aye Director Geary aye Director Mack aye Director Patu aye Director Pinkham aye Director Harris aye.

This motion is passed unanimously.

Thank you.

We are on D introduction items.

Number one 2018 19 legislative agenda.

This came before exec October 11th for.

says consideration approval of this item would adopt the 2018 19 legislative agenda as attached to the board action report who will be presenting and I'm counting on directors Geary and Mack for backup here.

Deputy Superintendent Steven Nielsen.

Take it away.

Good evening directors.

This follows board policy 1 2 2 5. We put together a legislative agenda every year.

This is very similar to what we've done in prior years as is the challenge from Olympia has not changed too much.

We have vetted these items through with several of our legislators and to test it to test whether or not We are on the right page in terms of possibilities in Olympia.

It's a short document it provides us opportunity to be flexible in Olympia and still retain and make momentum on funding.

Anything to add to what's already in the BAR Director Geary and Mack that we didn't cover in committee reports.

Thank you sir.

Number two approval of.

I'm sorry I didn't see you.

I guess I just want to say that I feel like this overarching legislative agenda is very responsive from a clear perspective of what our overarching goals are as well as some detail about specific policies that we can push forth and appreciate staff's work on that and want to make sure that if anyone any directors have any questions about those priorities we'd be happy to answer those.

Director Geary Director Burke.

The only other thing I wanted to say about this is that this is a legislative agenda.

It allows the district to act independently in responding to the list of proposed legislation that's going to just start flowing in over the months that the legislators are in session.

But there are going to be many topics that will come up and many proposed pieces of legislation that our staff will also continue to respond to.

So it's not as if though this is the beginning and the end when there's going to be more out there.

But this allows for a lot of guidance without having to check back in all the time.

So it's a very useful document.

It doesn't capture.

Everything of course all of our hopes and dreams but it is it's necessary and useful to our staff.

Director Burke.

This is a sort of an alignment question under the second one fund capital facilities projects and remove barriers to address needs.

One of the topics or questions that I've I've asked staff a couple of times is around skill center funding is something that's a state capital request.

You essentially have to create a 10 year plan and then do sort of incremental asks against it.

And it's it's a dynamic of well we can only get money in certain places.

Do we get it for capacity do we get it for condition do we get it for a skill center.

And so does the way this is itemized does that preclude us from having the conversation around figuring out how to get onto a 10 year skill center cycle.

No.

Thank you.

Can I expand on that.

Go ahead Director Mack.

Thank you for the very very direct clear answer of no.

I to expand on that though one of the things that we're working on in the operations committee is updating our policy around facilities master planning.

Right now we have a policy that does levy planning.

which is really focused around one funding source and there's lots of other funding sources that well there's not but there might be lots of other funding sources that we should consider.

I know I'm sorry that's really funny.

At any rate this legislative agenda does not preclude us from.

looking at planning more comprehensively for skill centers and also pursuing those dollars and I think that folding that into the facilities master planning process that's going to be coming up again in a year is is a piece of that.

OK number two approval of the Washington State auditors SAO annual audit services contract for the 2017 18 fiscal year audits.

This came before A&F October 8th for.

And to save time this item plus items 2 3 4 and 5 for approval.

Thank you sir.

Approval of this item would authorize the superintendent reimburse the Washington State Auditor's Office for its services up to the amount of three hundred forty eight thousand dollars for the district's 2017 18 fiscal year audits.

This is a compliance piece that we can't say no to.

Is that correct.

Assistant Superintendent JoLynn Berge.

Correct.

Thank you.

We don't get to negotiate it either do we.

No.

Comments questions concerns from my colleagues seeing none.

Number three approval of elevator maintenance and repair contract extension with LTCH for the 2018 19 school year as reference came before A&F October 8th for approval approval of this item would extend the current elevator maintenance and repair contract in the amount of two hundred eighty five thousand dollars with LTCH for the 2018 19 school year.

Assistant Superintendent Dr. Flip Herndon take it away quickly.

Indeed.

So proposing this is proposing an extension of the current contract with LTCH systems and LTCH has been our vendor for the last three years and has the state contract.

So basically they have a contract with the state to do elevator repair.

The contract is under the terms and pricing of the master state contract 0 0 3 0 0 7 1 3 for elevator maintenance and repair.

The state contract was just renewed.

The contract amount has not increased.

It's the same amount as last year's contract of two hundred and eighty five thousand dollars.

The contract is for quarterly maintenance and repair.

Quarterly maintenance is required to maintain elevator license through state labor and industries and we currently have one hundred and thirty three licensed elevators or lift in the district.

So I hope this brings this down to ground level for everybody.

Oh I had to put one you know I didn't want to get a rise out of you so.

Oh.

Comments questions concerns or retorts from my colleagues.

Director Burke.

I was going to try to do a joke but you one upped it.

I just wanted to say that before I sat on the board when I was just a mouthy person that stood behind the podium just and had a chance to meet with senior staff around a topic like mathematics.

I got stuck in the elevator.

The one that has the sign on it right.

And that was a real downer.

So that's it.

Other substantive comments questions concerns or retorts from my colleagues seeing none.

Number four adopting new board policy 5 2 2 2 job sharing and repealing board policy and procedure F 12.0 0 and F 12.0 1 job sharing.

Again came before A&F October 8th for approval approval of this item would transition a policy about job sharing from the old lettered series to the numbered 5000 policy series and make edits that align with WASDA model policy.

Is this a clean up.

It's slightly more than a cleanup.

So tell us how.

Yes.

So assistant superintendent of H.R.

Clover Codd.

Thank you.

So the revision is based in two parts.

One is to transition from the letter policies over to the number.

And then the other is we wanted to take the model WSSDA policy and align our policy to that.

Our original policy is one sentence.

It is the policy of the Seattle School Board to permit job sharing in accordance with administrative procedures provided that in no case should the cost of the district of a shared position be greater than the cost of a regular position.

So what we have done is we've maintained that the edits are consistent with that one sentence but then we took some of the model WSSDA language and added for specificity reasons Reserving the authority to determine the number of job sharing positions require employees to develop a written plan when they're in a job sharing situation and also to dissolve any job sharing assignments at our discretion.

So we add a little bit more specificity to the policy and so for your reference you've got the model WSSDA policy here as an attachment so you can see that we literally copied and pasted the language we like from theirs and stuck it into ours.

Did you wish to speak to this Director Pinkham.

I just want to add that this was one of the items that we had some good discussion on during our A&F meeting around you know how much of FTE will do we divvy it up.

And so there was good conversation and point 4.25 how low do we go.

And then what if the position is like a 1.2 FTE.

How do we handle that.

So I appreciate the discussion with my fellow A&F.

Director Mack and then.

Yeah I really appreciate this came in front of the committee a couple different times to have a robust conversation around it.

I'm just looking over the language here though and I could you because we had a robust conversation around the point X FTE limitations and I think we had agreed to that you had agreed to some language that was slightly different than the original and I'm not sure where that showed up.

So that you're actually talking about the superintendent procedure.

That's where that language was.

So I did make edits to the superintendent procedure based on just feedback.

And so even though you all are not voting on the procedure it's here for your reference.

So you'll see in the red line version of the superintendent procedure that we did talk about.

not should not be less than point four FTE.

You'll see that in the procedure.

Right.

And that's because of the severe challenges of somebody who maybe only wants to work one day a week and that just doesn't make any sense.

Thank you.

Director Burke.

Is this is this something that is a valuable tool for you in the attract and retain realm or is it something that's just sort of expected.

I actually don't have data to say if this policy improves our retention of employees I don't have any data on that but it is a tool that principals and program managers use to be able to make sure that they are sometimes it is to help keep employees who.

would like to go part time but not work full time.

So it doesn't happen.

I mean we do have we do have a lot of job shares more in elementary schools than we do in secondary.

But you know it's a tool that we have and we want to keep that tool.

Thank you.

OK then.

Number five replacement for educational programs and operations levy resolution number 18 19 dash 2 this came before A&F October 8 for approval approval of this item would accept the proposed replacement for educational programs and operation levy.

and adopt resolution 18 19 dash 2 which places a three year levy totaling eight hundred fifteen million dollars on the February 12th 2019 ballot as attached to the board action report.

Take it away JoLynn Berge.

Right.

We're seeking replacement of our educational program and operations levy in the amount of eight hundred fifty million dollars over a three year period which would start with collections and calendar year 2020. By way of background this is a change in name for the levy which was formerly known as the maintenance and operations levy.

The name changes to reflect new legislative language and to more clearly describe levy use.

The current operation levy provides approximately 19 percent of our revenue.

The current levy and the future levy if approved pays for items including but not limited to special education and English language services transportation and remaining unfunded salary allocations for principals and classified staff.

We are requesting more levy authority than can currently be collected under law with the hope that legislative action will restore some of our lost levy funding and provide additional funding to our district.

Under the new legislation our per pupil amount that can be collected is twenty five hundred dollars per student which compared to a 17 18 which compares to a 17 18 amount of four thousand one hundred dollars per student.

In 2020 the first of our three year levy if approved we are requesting approximately two hundred and seventy one point three million dollars with the current law limiting that collection to only one hundred and thirty eight million in 2020. So stated another way legislative action during the 2019 legislative session would be needed to collect more than one hundred and thirty eight million or the smaller twenty five hundred dollar per pupil amount.

The amount being requested of $271.3 million would result in a rate of $1.05 per thousand of assessed valuation per our current estimates.

The amount currently allowed under law So the 138 million that we could currently collect would result in a rate of 51 cents per thousand in 2020 both of which I would note are lower than the 2018 rates that our taxpayers are paying which is an estimated dollar one dollar and 10 cents per thousand.

I believe these points address the questions and clarifications requested by the A&F committee members that they asked me to do an introduction and I would conclude my remarks.

Thank you.

Questions comments concerns.

Director Pinkham.

Thank you Director Burke for addressing the concerns that were brought up at A&F.

One of the things that I was really that we make sure that that title includes replacement.

This is a replacement levy but just the amounts that were restricted now by current law.

Some of the people in the audience are commenting you know why can't we go for a one point four billion dollar levy.

Well law says we can't request that much.

So having that clarification and going over the numbers again about how much we're asking per thousand dollars of assessed value I feel has helped provide clarity to what we're asking for and by requesting based on our maximum that we can right now and then.

scaling down as whatever we see as the legislature allows us to collect.

So I just want to thank you and my again my fellow A&F committee members for their input.

Harris — Other comments questions concerns.

I hope we lead with that in the marketing of this levy.

I think it's going to be really critical and I know you're already working on it and I appreciate it.

Director Mack.

I think I just want to say again now that there is a public hearing here tomorrow at 7 o'clock for this levy and the BEX levy just to let folks that might be watching know again that there is a hearing.

7 o'clock.

Come on down.

Number six approval of facilities master plan update 2018 for BEX V capital levy.

This came before Ops October 4th.

Approval of this item would approve the facilities master plan update 2018 per policy 6901. This update to the master plan informs the board on capital needs district wide and facilities that help to deliver and support the educational programs as stated in the district's mission.

Dr. Herndon take it away.

Thank you.

As has been stated part of preparation for the BEX or BTA capital levies is taking a look at our facilities master planning the board and operations chair.

has been working very closely with staff to update this process.

We've had quite a bit of work happening both with staff getting information from enrollment services and obviously having a new task force that was established over the summer that gained valuable amounts of input from community and other sources.

We also have integrated into this which you will also see reflected in number seven the BEX capital levy the policy 0 0 3 0 which previously was not as visible on the capital side.

So with the board guidance and support of resources and dedication of time I think we've really made our first really public and explicit opportunities of highlighting the race and equity board policy into this capital side.

So in this particular case approval of this facilities master plan is a major component of what we're looking at for the capital levy for BEX V which we are hoping to go out in February of 2019. Harris.

Comments questions concerns from my colleagues.

Director Mack.

I want to express extreme gratitude to the staff that has worked diligently on pulling together this update.

There is extensive information in here that is in addition to I believe that well the 2012 and the 2015 and including the addresses for buildings is in here now which helps us clarify what what building we're talking about when we change names of schools frequently as well as demographic information.

The City of Seattle and Seattle Public Schools work that was done around the.

of enrollment planning projection work with the partnership agreement as well as the main report that was done in 2014 and the most recent McKinsey report that provides a lot of good information about what our real building needs are.

And I I think it's really important to point out that our building needs.

in terms of really having quality learning environments for students are far exceeding what we can actually afford to put on to this next levy and that documenting that as is done in this document is really helpful I think to our process of trying to identify OK so then what's next and how do we actually start really making a big dent in in the challenge and I think we're We have the opportunity to do that with this next levy but I encourage anybody to actually read this document.

It is very very well done and comprehensive and very useful I think to us as a board.

Director Burke.

I'm this might have come up in conversation but I was trying to read it at the same time.

Does this incorporate all of our recent conversations around the equity scoring and the renorming.

I see some tables in there.

Are those current vis a vis that scoring process.

I believe they are.

I'd have to double check to make sure and I can definitely do that between intro and action to make sure that everything is the most up to date scoring methodology.

Thank you.

I can comment that when this came to Ops and it was discussed there was that was one of the points and you were there as well that the spreadsheets and all of that information may need to be updated.

I also saw that there was a link in there a typo.

So I think there's probably a little bit of cleanup that might need to be done.

Director Geary and then Director Pinkham.

I want to thank Director Mack and the staff at operations for all the work that went in this and I want to thank the people who came today and testified and said really urged us to go out for as much of a levy as we think we can do because for a long time we limited that conversation to the one billion dollar mark and we've moved substantially beyond that and we've weighed the potential risk of doing that.

But I think we need to remember that our economy is so strong and we have a tax system that really favors people of affluency in this city in this state.

And so we are a world class city as somebody said and we deserve world class schools.

And so I feel really comfortable.

that we can justify this.

We need to justify this and our city needs to step up and support this and make sure that they are sending their children to really welcoming inspiring buildings.

And I know having looked at all the schools that have opened the last two years that we can do that if we're given the resources and I would invite anybody who has any doubt whatsoever to go visit any one of our new schools and see how good they feel and then visit any of these that are on this levy.

and ask yourself doesn't every student deserve a building that is inspiring.

So thank you so much for your work.

Director Pinkham.

Yes.

Thank you for your work.

And I do need to bring up another issue that's here again making the visible visible.

Reading the growth what I missed the operations levy meeting or the operations meeting because I was on travel.

But we talk about all the major ethnic groups but Native Americans are not seen here.

We got data on them.

But when we talk about growth trends we talk about white population Asian population Hispanic but no mention of the Native American population.

We describe the city we talk about it being the home to Amazon Nordstrom and Starbucks but no acknowledgement of the land that we're on.

Can we please include that.

And if there is no change or Native American demographics again include it so we know that we are acknowledged that we're here when we see the data that's shared.

Was was that a nod in agreement that that will be changed before action.

Yes well I'm taking the notes on that and making sure we can include that.

13.

OK last but not least again many an extreme thanks to the staff director Mack Yeoman's work.

Huge lift.

Thank you for that.

And to the advisory task force.

We had some of the best minds in this city helping us and I think it's a model for how we can put together task forces and and show the kind of leadership that we're capable of.

And I think the results are here.

Thank you again.

OK.

Number 7 building excellence specs 5 capital levy program and authorizing resolution 2018 19 dash 6 came before Ops October 4th for.

Approval of this item would adopt Resolution 2018 19 dash 6 which places a six year capital levy totaling one point four billion dollars on the February 12th 2019 special election ballot for voter approval to fund the building excellence BEX V capital levy program.

OK so we've had a lot of conversations about this topic obviously.

I think a total of 10 work sessions with the board on top of several community meetings.

I do have a very quick PowerPoint that we can go through quickly it's high level just to kind of recap the work that we've done recently and I'm not going to read bullet by bullet line by line.

Is this on the web and or part of our meeting.

Uploaded documents sir.

No it was not.

Shame on you.

I think it's important to have a very simple especially since we're televised and this is introduction for the public to.

And I appreciate that but we've got to get that in the queue.

So it's part of the web.

Let's go ahead and do that now.

But but duly noted.

Yeah.

Yep.

Thanks.

So here we have.

This is part of policy 69 0 1 which we're following for capital levy and planning.

You can see we've updated and added to master plan utilization and looked at building systems and repairs of the facilities condition assessment report done by McKinstry.

Next slide please.

Had several work sessions the board guiding principles were adopted in May.

You can see the feedback that we've been able to go through and you continue to receive even at the board meeting tonight.

OK.

Next slide.

Categorization here and the scale of 1 to 5. We've talked quite a bit about the equity analysis and how that's gone through a couple permutations.

OK next slide.

So this is in here we have a summary of the BEX V project list and we've been utilizing several aspects to come up with the project list available.

We took into account both board and community feedback.

Next slide.

So the grand total $1.4 billion is the particular ask in this situation, of which you can see almost 800 million go into building capacity and condition projects, we do have money outlined to assist with possible property acquisition and infrastructure planning.

You have almost $130 million going to building systems, repairs, and replacements.

We also have maps that show what that distribution looks like.

Those are available in the back of the room.

And then $40 million for one-off projects, almost $8 million of which is identified for school safety improvements.

additionally we have thirty million dollars in major preventive maintenance uh...

i think we pointed this out before that that was a change in state law previously to be able to use capital dollars for these projects otherwise maintenance projects are come out of the operation side of the house and that competes with curriculum staffing dollars which is really a challenge so that change in state law was certainly welcomed uh...

in addition Both the major preventative maintenance the major and one off projects really help bring down our backlog of maintenance overall and we've made quite a dent in that in the last five or six years through the capital levies passed both BEX IV BTA IV and now BEX V. There's also one hundred and fifty one million dollars for technology projects and twelve point three identified for academics and athletics.

So we're here tonight.

We have the.

meeting our regular board meeting.

We have a special meeting tomorrow night which is just basically public comment section where members of the public can come and comment on the levies both levies operations and this capital levy.

And will you have these documents available for the public.

Yes we'll have them available tomorrow.

And how are we going to get this information uploaded to the web so that it is visible and transparent.

So there are two pieces on this that we have to make sure that any if we have this I think this is just mostly text.

It should upload fine.

We shouldn't have any ADA requirements.

We usually have problems if we have tables.

So we'll scan this for ADA compliance and then we can upload that.

And where will it be found for those that want to look back at this.

So for this particular slide we'll put it both in this as part of the agenda for this meeting and we'll also include it in the Levy webpage that we have the capital levy webpage.

So then that way it's in two locations.

Thank you You can see our hope is introduction tonight with probable hopeful action on October 30th.

Absolute drop dead deadline is December 14th.

But there's only a board meeting on December 5th.

But we're hoping we don't have to go that far with the final special election happening on February 12th 2019.

Comments questions concerns director DeWolf.

Thank you for all the hard work on this.

My question is so we've particularly in the community have talked a lot about maintaining keeping and maintaining Rainier Beach on the list.

Even so far as saying I think it's number one it's going to be priority top.

The way that the refined equity scoring has it up as it's been updated Rainier Beach kind of is farther down on that that list.

So I guess I have a couple of questions that doesn't necessarily does that risk its completion if it's farther down that list or we're going to just.

Okay my second thing is is is it under the purview and authority of our governing body to move Rainier Beach High School to the top of the list of basically what's the first thing we're going to do for construction.

Can we do Rainier Beach first or do we do it in the order of Northgate and Freeland.

Can that.

Yes so there is attached to this kind of a sequence of projects so for a couple of the projects that have to be located off site to an interim site there is a timing associated with those.

Most of these projects Rainier Beach being one of them we can actually build side by side so they don't have to move to an interim location.

The only challenge we have is just the financing of when it comes in.

So but we can we can figure that piece out by the time this goes out.

Everyone will know what the sequence is which projects are happening.

And the sequence is not part of the levy language.

Correct.

Correct.

Thank you.

Director Mack.

Right.

And is that do we call that the interim plan.

What's the name for that because I transition plan.

So the transition plan is really just in place for the schools that are being impacted and have to transition from one place to another if we have to figure something out.

Other than this this is just the sequencing of the projects.

So that's we want to figure out which projects we can do.

And some of that's based a little bit on the size of the bids.

We've got to figure out from the community whether or not it makes a difference if we're going out for one sooner than the other.

Obviously Rainier Beach is a big project that's a high school.

It's more square footage.

It's a huge piece on that.

So we'll get a sense.

I'll be talking with the capital department to figure out if there's a sequence that makes more sense than another.

But correct it's not part of the actual ballot language to say this one's happening first.

Obviously we'd love to get to Rainier Beach at the top of the list.

Director Mack.

Speaking of the capital the capital department I just want to give a huge shout out to Richard Best and the team there because amazing and I really appreciate all the work there and To the question around like which project comes first and interim buildings and looking into the future.

This is something that we probably want to keep in our minds is that these are likely going to trigger further boundary conversations that we're going to need to get into for these schools in the future because we are adding permanent seats and there may be needs to shift some things around.

So the boundary conversations are going to continue in the future.

Director Burke.

Thanks for the presentation to kind of find granularity questions and then one in general for.

We've heard from the community in Sacajawea and we've got a site improvements line item.

Has it been defined what is within that.

Because I know there's previous conversation around sprinklers there's current conversations around.

Playground and ADA.

Has that been.

Yeah I think at the work session we talked about side improvements are usually dealing with either playground asphalt or parking lot issues so that's what we look at at Sacagawea.

I believe for Sacagawea it's improvement in playground asphalt but I want to make sure I double check on that so that next time I can tell you for sure.

But I believe that's what the side improvement is for Sacagawea.

Perfect.

And then the other one to check on.

We've heard from the Jane Addams community also interested in in site improvements and it's not clear to me whether that they are or are not included in this list.

If that's something you could follow up on.

I will definitely follow up on that and let you know by.

And then just to generalize that comment if there are schools that are kind of in that didn't quite make the cut.

You know we've heard from North Beach we've heard from Whitman.

If you can share what is our commitment as a district either in this levy or outside this levy to make sure that those students have a healthy and supportive educational environment.

I won't pin you down on it now but I'd love if that's a message we can say loud and clear.

when we approve and also when we're going out for vote.

We'll certainly make sure we have as accurate a statement as possible to be able to respond to that question.

Director Mack.

Get two other things that I wanted to raise.

One is the line item short and intermediate term capacity portable management for six million.

My understanding is that that estimation previously was smaller and that it was increased because we have an intention to.

Replace the old portables that are toxic with oil burning and moldy etc.

And then we want to do that in short order.

And that's one thing that we're planning to do as soon as we can do it.

That's correct.

That is one of the items we do have outdated portables that don't actually have basically like a SKU number on them which means you can't move them.

So if we have a portable that's so old that it can't be moved there's a good chance it would be on the list for a replacement.

Excellent.

And the other question I have around the line item called property acquisition and infrastructure is this 30 million.

This line item also includes like our future planning needs.

Correct.

So our continued planning needs around.

The facilities master plan potential 12th high school other other continued planning for our facility needs.

That's correct.

We want to make sure we have an appropriate resource to be able to move as quickly as possible with any future plans that we might need to have and not have to wait for another levy to get funds for that.

This also includes the Fort Lawton property potential purpose purchase.

Could indeed.

We didn't want to do an exhaustive list.

So we that's why we kind of have it as property acquisition and infrastructure planning.

And and for clarification for folks in the public that that just because something hasn't made it onto the list at this point the planning hasn't necessarily stopped.

There's still you know we still need to continue moving forward with.

That's correct.

Yes.

Does the property acquisition also address the need for warehouse space and or bus parking.

It's possible that that could be one of those items.

Correct.

OK.

And obviously all those items would come to the board.

Those are above two hundred fifty thousand dollar items.

Can't buy a house for less than 250 in this town.

That's correct.

Any other comments questions concerns.

Thank you very much and again take it back to your staff that we are so grateful and thankful.

Thank you for your support.

OK.

Number eight repeal of policy 2 0 2 3 classroom use of electronically accessible materials and approval of new policy.

2 0 2 3 digital citizenship and media literacy C&I October 5th for approval approval of this item would repeal policy 2 0 2 3 classroom use of electronically accessible materials and replaces it with new policy 2 0 2 3 digital citizenship and media literacy.

The new policy updates policy guidance regarding digital citizenship and media literacy and moves on.

Other references to safety supplemental materials curriculum and online learning to policies 2 0 2 4 2 0 2 2 and 2 0 1 5 which have pending updates.

Associate Superintendent Michael Tolley take it away.

Yes, this action, of course, is in response to change in legislation that prompted upgrades to policies and procedures around digital citizenship and Internet use and safety.

The policy as drafted actually provides general terms, definitions for digital citizenship and media literacy.

We did use the WSSDA template policy to develop this policy and we will also use the WSSDA template to develop the procedures that will accompany this to provide additional guidance as to how we would provide instruction for our students.

Also note that the current policy 2023 that was mentioned classroom use of electronic electronically accessible materials.

That policy will actually be as noted incorporated into board policy 2022 and be brought back to the board for consideration.

Comments questions concerns from my colleagues.

Director Mack.

Do I have the correct version.

I'm not seeing a redlined version here and I'm kind of confused because what I'm seeing is the exact policy so I don't see where we have changes being proposed.

Am I missing something.

I don't know if this is the link but all I see in the bar is the existing 2023 policy and the existing 2020 2023 they both say the same thing and I don't see a redlined.

I'm a little confused.

And they're both dated 2011. So I don't know if there's been a mistake on the posting of this but this is I don't know what I'm looking at.

Director Burke.

I'll try to get this right.

So this is a bit of a kerfuffle because we're changing.

We're using the same number.

We're repealing one policy with that number we're putting another policy on top of it with that number.

And so the media literacy or.

Classroom use of electronically accessible materials is being repealed and then digital citizenship and media literacy is a new policy that is being adopted on top of that and that's why there are no red lines.

Yeah at the bottom it does say that and also I'm curious to know what the WSSDA model policy 2023 is in relation to this and how it's how this.

This this document started as the WSSDA policy but that would be if you go back into committee materials that's where you could find the red lines from the WSSDA to this.

But I think those didn't come all the way to the board.

I think that's asking a bit much for folks to have to dig through committee materials in order to determine what their votes going to be to get that figured out.

Is there a way we can.

reconnoiter this to make it more transparent both for the board and also for the public.

I want to push back just a little bit.

Please feel free.

Typically when we do red lines it's from policy to policy.

It's not from WSSDA to policy whereas what was done at the committee level was from WSSDA to policy it was from a template to a current policy that was committee work that was discussed over two different committee meetings.

And so I'm happy to take that offline but I don't feel particularly comfortable putting WSSDA policy language in as if it were native board work and doing it as a red line to say this is what we've changed because I think that's.

A finer level of granularity.

I think it maybe knows the person from a legal perspective and process perspective because if we're repealing the one but it's got the same number but you don't technically take the entire text from the first one red line it out and put the new text in then to me it doesn't because we're not repealing the actual policy we're completely replacing the language.

So to me the red line version that should be present here so that you can see it is. redlining out all the old language and then the new language is there and then the WSSDA model policy would just be for information sake not necessarily showing the red lines or not but would be helpful to see what WSSDA was was suggesting.

Just to clarify I guess the first one in this BAR is what exists now and the second one is what we're suggesting to be moved to.

Good evening, Noel Treat, General Counsel.

Just to follow up on that question, what's really determinative is the language in the motion, not the attachments to the bar itself.

And so the language in the motion that you'll vote on, hopefully at the next meeting, I think it's pretty clear that you're repealing the one 2023 with its specific title and adopting a new 2023 with a different title and different content.

So, at least for legal sufficiency, I think the bars as currently put together is adequate to accomplish what you're purporting to accomplish.

But certainly, if there's other ways to show it so it's more clear to other readers, I think that's fine.

But I don't see a legal infirmity in the way this bar is put together.

I will acknowledge that the there the footer refers to the previous policies date but the content in the policy document and the title and the and the number on the second one are appropriate.

And it might be that on the old one where you could put some kind of header you know proposed to be repealed or something to make that more clear that might help.

Would that be objectionable to the chair of C&I.

Would that be objectionable to Associate Superintendent Michael Tolley.

Not at all we can make that happen.

Director Pinkham.

And for me looking at the two different the current policy and the new one the current one seems to put a lot of onus on the instructor and the instructor shall do this if the instructor feels this the instructor shall inform and the other one it just seems to be more the students use.

What happens to the instructors then responsibilities.

So as I mentioned that particular language will be actually incorporated into a new a different policy 2022 which will be coming forward to for board consideration at a later time.

Other comments questions concerns from my colleagues.

Number nine.

Annual approval of programs of schools using the alternative learning experience model and review of policy number 2 2 5 5 alternative learning experience or ALE schools or programs came before C&I October 5th for.

Approval.

Approval of this item would accept the Cascade parent partnership program interagency academy school the Nova project high school and middle college schools as the district's ALE Programs pursuant to the school board review conducted agreed to make no changes to policy number 2 2 5 5 alternative learning experience schools or programs.

Questions comments concerns.

Surprise.

I have one.

It's one that we have talked about incessantly.

Why we do not have continuous enrollment Option or ALE schools.

As part of our enrollment processes is again an ongoing frustration.

They're not service schools.

They're option schools.

We need to get rid of the pejorative language and we need to recognize that all of our students are not widgets and that these are good places where they can learn and be inspired.

And I think that our poets this evening made that ever so clear.

I do agree.

Other comments questions concerns seeing none.

Approval of courses with new content as defined by superintendent procedure 2 0 2 6 came before C&I October 5th for.

Approval.

Approval of this item would accept courses with new content including an ethnic studies course that have been recommended by the board.

Comments questions concerns Director Mack.

I'm just wondering if we can get a quick summary.

We are moving through these really quickly and what are the courses that are being updated.

Do we have a quick summary on what those are.

so this particular school superintendent procedure requires that we bring to the board any course that has new course content uh...

this particular procedure was put in place in two thousand eleven and uh...

since that time this procedure wasn't being followed appropriately and we determined this past spring that there are a number of courses that have been developed and implemented between 2011-2017 that did not, that may contain new course content that did not come to the board for review or approval.

We did err on the side of caution by saying, well, if we're not sure if it contained new course content, we put it on the list.

So, in the end, we have 215 courses that have been developed and implemented over the last many years.

If you look through the list of courses, you will see most of those courses are world language competency courses so that we can award high school credit to students based on their assessment of competency on their home language.

So you will see many many courses listed for a variety of languages spoken within Seattle Public Schools.

In addition this policy also would allow us to formally approve ethnic studies as with a course code.

The board action report does speak a little bit give a little bit of background on the development of that course.

And the course description for ethnic studies is attached to the board action report.

Does that meet your concerns madam.

Yeah and I appreciate that the entire list is here.

That's a lot of courses that didn't get approved.

And like you said a lot of them are actually the language ones.

So I'm finally getting to the end and I'm seeing things like ceramics.

We didn't have ceramics prior.

So again if we as I mentioned we erred on the side of caution and included courses if if the ceramics was using the new course content in terms of the way it was being taught then we put it on the list if we weren't sure if it was done prior.

So I'm not seeing any major outliers of something that community members may come forward and be upset about.

It looks to me like mostly language mostly some art music.

Ethnic Studies is the one and then that's essentially it.

That's correct.

OK great.

Thank you.

Director Pinkham.

Would this also allow students to maybe do college and high school remotely.

Let's say someone wanted to go.

I want to take a native language course from Northwest Indian College.

We would need to be able to assess the competency level of that student.

And if there if there is a way to do that then possibly we can add that as one of the courses listed in the catalog so that then we can award credit for it.

But currently I don't know of any native languages that are listed.

And so it's just what popped up when we see all these languages being taught is just so heartfelt.

Yes we don't offer any native languages for students to learn.

I wish I could learn my Nez Perce language while in school.

It is offered over at Lewis and Clark College in Idaho and I don't know if Muckleshoot if they're developing the Lushootseed class.

University of Washington is teaching Lushootseed now.

So I would like to see that we include some kind of indigenous language.

Director Patu.

So where can we actually see the content for ethnic studies.

There is a course description attached to the board action report.

And it has all the courses that actually are.

Well there's there's just this one course that we are currently asking to be approved as part of this particular board action item.

But you know what we are currently doing of course we do have task force we have people working on units that will be incorporated and piloted within our schools.

That happened last spring and we will continue to do that this year.

Thank you.

I have a follow up question.

I heard in probably out of respect that it's Jesse Hagopian's ethnic studies class and and respect him greatly and deeply.

This is more of a team sport though was it not.

Yes absolutely.

As I mentioned the development of that particular course and the process that went through review was pretty extensive.

Lots of community based organizational support as well as some experts in the field actually gave input into a review of that particular course.

Thank you.

Director DeWolf did you have a question comment concern sir.

Yeah I don't know how maybe this is too in the weeds micromanaging but one of the things I tried to highlight in our conversation at the committee was just that particularly as the themes under the course description I was just trying to be thoughtful that particularly for native communities land is also really important.

So I don't know how to include that but I think particularly as we think about that culture that land is really important too as well.

Well I can definitely give that feedback to the developers of that particular course.

Director Mack.

I'm sorry I just kind of triggered on something.

Why aren't the new science courses at high school in this one because they're named differently and they're broken up and they're slightly different content than.

What is it Chem A Chem B Phys A Phys B. That the whole conversation we've been having about that science curriculum.

Correct.

Aren't those new courses that need to be adopted.

They are.

There are new course titles but not new course content.

The content was just reordered and by policy that does not require board approval when we reordered the existing course content.

Does the chair of C&I wish to add or respond.

I've already spoken my mind on that.

Fair enough.

OK then moving on.

Number 11 approval of contract to support the open doors youth re-engagement program for the 2018 19 school year came before C&I October 5th for.

Approval of this item would authorize the superintendent to execute a contract with the Seattle Central College for a total not to exceed amount of three hundred fifteen thousand dollars over fiscal years 2018 19 in the form of the draft agreement dated September 1 2018 and attached to the school board action report with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent.

and to take any necessary actions to implement the contract.

Yes the open doors youth re-engagement program provides support to our students between the ages of 16 to 21 who have either dropped out or are not on track to graduate by the age of 21. This particular contract provides a partnership with Seattle Central College.

where they provide supports to our students and through preparation for GED and once completing that they can go on and take college level courses.

This particular contract is in the amount of four hundred fifty thousand dollars.

So is this a ratification of a contract since September 1st 2018 is come and gone or.

I'm not understanding the.

summary here.

So my understanding is it provides us the ability to allow those dollars to be provided to the college.

This is in some cases considered flow through dollars depending on the number of students that are being served.

Then we can these dollars can go directly to the Seattle Central College with of course we return about retain about 7 percent of that.

Any other comments questions concerns.

Director Patu.

So when that's happening are we as a district actually keeping track of these kids are actually our students are going into that program.

We do.

And in our partnership we do request for data on the how these students are doing.

And in fact that was one of the requests made by the C&I policy committee was to provide some data on success and that was attached to the board action report.

So this is not a new program is it?

No this is not a new program.

It was actually initially implemented in 2016 and we have had students participating but now the enrollment has grown to the point that it's above the two hundred fifty thousand dollar threshold.

So now we're having to bring it to the board for approval.

And what's the success rate on this program?

Again, if you refer to the attached document, you'll see that it refers to the number of students that are being able to give a little bit of a snapshot as to 59.2% of the students taking college level courses who earned their GED.

So that's a little bit of an indication of how well students are doing in this program.

Thank you.

Director Pinkham.

So currently this is just with Seattle Central College.

Any opportunity to expand it to North Seattle South Seattle College for or is this able to serve students district wide are we busing students to South Seattle.

Right.

This students are able to be accessed this district wide and there is a separate program in association with interagency as well as Seattle Central.

Can you expand on that just a little bit.

Interagency in Seattle Central.

Correct the interagency actually were the first to implement a program based on this particular legislation 14 18 to where students as part of interagency are accessing the GED program preparation program and college level courses associated with this particular program.

Basically a program provided by the state.

OK.

Thank you.

Number 12 BEX IV BTA IV approval of the value engineering report for the Daniel Bagley elementary school modernization and addition project.

This came before Ops October 4th for.

Consideration.

Approval of this item would help secure approximately one million nine hundred thousand dollars in state funding assistance for the Daniel Bagley Elementary School modernization and addition project.

The Office of Superintendent Public Instruction OSPI form D 7 application requires board acceptance of the value engineering report and the architect's response and recommendation matrix.

Dr. Herndon.

This one's pretty straightforward.

We've gone through several value engineering reports before this one specific to Daniel Bagley and have not heard any concerns regarding this particular one.

So if you have heard something I haven't or have any additional questions I'd be happy.

And we often do.

Sure.

We get around.

Any comments questions concerns.

Director Mack.

I note that it's for consideration and I'm I'm honestly not remembering why we did consideration.

I don't know if Director Geary has recollection I'm trying to pull up the minutes so that I can refresh my memory.

If there was a question that we had around I don't I don't remember what it was but we it doesn't say approval so.

OK well we have two weeks to figure it out and to get those questions in early and often so that we don't have issues on the dais.

Director Pinkham.

So since we're looking at getting state funding I don't know if the amount ties into this.

Do we have to provide yes yes we'll be using this for 10 years.

Is that going to be part of the D forms coming to us.

That is part of the as you go through the D form process it's not part of this particular one but.

This is just one of the steps to receive that additional money for the modernization.

So that's that's what this one is.

It's the value engineering stage of that process.

But eventually we will have to save.

Correct.

That we're using the building for that particular purpose.

OK.

Thank you.

Director Mack.

I want to give a shout out to Jennifer Lincoln the new admin.

She does amazing minutes.

So I the minutes say that we discussed some amendments around but Twenty nine different ideas.

Twelves would accept and fill up.

I don't quite understand exactly what those amendments are but I don't know that I see redlining in the document itself so.

They were probably alternatives maybe not amendments because I don't think we had twenty nine amendments during the meeting so they could have been alternatives for the project but I can check with her to make sure.

You know I do actually I'm finally triggering and I apologize because we are getting late and we've gone through a lot today.

It says that I requested additional summary and key findings.

I think that it was that the clarity of what the recommendations were were really difficult to find in this really huge document and that having that in the bar of a very brief summary of what the key findings and recommendations were.

was helpful to the board actually understanding what this is without having to go through that huge document.

Director Burke.

I my recollection is similar and I'm looking at the pages 11 and 12 of the BAR which is basically the matrix of what the recommendations were and what sort of what was acted on what was what response did we take as a district as a result of this value engineering.

And I think.

That's I'm not sure if it was part of the original one but from my point of view what's in pages 11 and 12 looks like it covers that concern fairly well.

OK can we agree to take a good strong look at it in the next week.

Get more information out.

SPS directors.

This is what we've determined if anybody's got questions comments concerns we get those in early so we don't have crazy on the dais.

Does that work for everybody.

I see consensus.

Thank you.

And can you tell me what person came up with D form.

I thought for years it was D E F O R M. I.

Yes.

Speaking of corny jokes.

It's a good question.

OK.

Here we go.

13 we're coming in on the homestretch folks OSPI distressed schools grant award architectural and engineering services contract P 1 5 8 0 to Maylum architects Inc. for the Coe elementary school classroom addition project came before Ops October 4 for.

Approval.

Approval of this item would authorize the superintendent to execute a contract with Malum architects for the co elementary classroom addition project in the amount of one million.

Something's wrong with the typo there.

That's an interesting sum.

Is it one million forty eight.

One million one hundred forty eight thousand.

Can you help us out there Mr. excuse me Dr. Herndon.

Yeah I'm pulling this one up right now.

Yes one million forty eight thousand two hundred and fifty one dollars.

Thank you.

Plus reimbursable.

Correct.

Short context please sir.

This is for the addition for Coe Elementary.

Again this was part of the distressed schools grant dollars that came to us from our legislative represent representatives in Olympia.

Questions comments Director Mack.

This item and the next item are both distressed schools grants and if.

Mr. Treat could come forward.

One of the questions that I've been trying to get clarity around is that we have a policy that requires that we approve grants before accepting dollars.

And in effect these bars are that both the approval of the grant as well as approval of the project and the dollars.

But the language may need some clarity in the motion in order to.

to state that because we don't actually have these grants in terms of like the the full application coming to us prior to when it comes to us with the project.

And can you maybe you can explain a little bit.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Thank you.

The issue that was raised is whether we are clearly enough having a board action that accepts the grant because there is a policy that requires board acceptance of grants.

And then of course there's board policy that requires approval of contracts at this dollar value too.

So to better clarify that we're doing both in this BAR when you see the BAR come back for action the motion language will be a little bit different.

And I'm going to be adding a provision that also says that the board accepts and obligates the distressed school grant funds for this contract.

So I think with that it'll clarify that you're.

And that would be on both 13th and 14th.

13th and 14th.

Same same issue same solution.

Terrific.

Thank you.

Questions comments concerns.

Number 14 OSPI distressed schools grant award architectural and engineering services contract P 1 5 7 9 to Malum architects Inc. for the Magnolia Elementary School phase 2 classroom addition project ops.

October 4th for.

Approval of this item would authorize superintendent to execute a contract with Malum architects for the Magnolia Elementary School phase 2 classroom addition project and the amount of five hundred forty three thousand nine hundred thirty eight dollars plus reasonable reimburse reasonable right reimbursable expenses not to exceed twenty thousand dollars.

with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the contract questions comments concerns seeing none.

Number 15 BTA 3 and BTA 4 final acceptance of public works contract K 5 0 7 6 with Sprint Turf LLC for the synthetic not crumb rubber.

turf replacement at Old Van Asselt and Whitman Middle School and field lighting infrastructure at Whitman Middle School project came before Ops October 4th for.

Approval.

Approval of this item would accept the work performed on the BTA III and excuse me.

I get all excited with final acceptance since the project's done and.

Okay you've got to hold your your excitement to like get this out darling.

Performed under the BTA III and BTA IV funded public works contract K 5 0 7 6. With Sprint turf for the synthetic turf replacement at Old Van Asselt and Whitman Middle School and field field lighting infrastructure at Whitman Middle School project as.

Final questions comments concerns any from you Dr. Herndon.

No it was pointed out the address of Whitman Middle School we've checked on that we'll update that for the final action.

Always happy to take constructive criticism.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Seeing no further business it is. 8 48 we are adjourned.