School Board Meeting Date June 1st, 2016 Pt. 2

Items amending policy number H01, 00, F21, 00, and 2200. This came to the executive committee and the executive committee reviewed the motion on May 5 and moved the item forward to the board for consideration pending the edits discussed.

Yes, I move that the school board amend policies number F21.00 H01.00 and 2200 as attached to the board action report.

I second the motion.

Any questions?

Director Geary.

It's my understanding that at the last board meeting there was some pretty lively discussion over this particular item and I wasn't here so I didn't have an opportunity to make any comments.

As Director Harris mentioned there are some concerns about this policy and whether or not it will ultimately take care of some of the difficulties that the public has when things happen and as we are seeing this isn't necessarily going to prevent programs dying through attrition because we just can't continue to fund them and so they wither on the vine.

And what I'd like for us to do, well I support this because I think the oversight is good And I've talked about this with a few other people.

What I really would like to see us as a board do is get a global picture of how we are placing programs throughout our district and how we are assigning our students to them.

And I think that that would bring this conversation to the level of oversight and direction where we could direct our district in terms of what programs we want to be offering throughout our district to which populations and how are we ensuring that all the different populations are having equitable access to the really interesting programs that we are making available in some communities.

And so I think this is a good start but I hope this isn't where the conversation ends and I hope that we will all continue to look for ways to better understand our student assignment plan, oversee that development, protect its formation once we have decided how we want programs to be offered in our district.

and then make sure that our student assignment plan is designed to guide students into those programs to keep them viable and healthy.

But that was my only comment because I just want to make sure that there are concerns that remain I am hearing and I think that if we do that other piece we will get to them in a more satisfying way.

Director Harris.

Thank you I agree with my esteemed colleague Director Geary this is a first step.

There are other issues that need to be addressed here like program evaluation.

I agree with Principal Clark that we need to be using the race and equity tool as we address these issues.

I am pleased that members of the community have reached out and suggested that this creates another layer of bureaucracy to that I say only if we let it.

If we do a better job of community engagement which I believe we will be doing and again huge props to Director excuse me to Superintendent Nyland for placing Carrie Campbell in her new position.

I have great faith and hope that our engagement will prove exponentially.

I don't see the concern from some community-based organizations that we will create quote another layer of bureaucracy that might be insensitive as a reason to vote against that.

Because that's only if we allow that to happen.

And I think the onus is on us to do a much better job of community engagement.

I think the onus is also on us to take the next step thoughtfully about how we place our SPED services or programs or whatever the heck we are calling whatever the heck we are doing.

Cleaning up the language about what it is exactly that we are talking about is a beautiful thing.

The collaboration that has happened between this board and the staff in bringing this forward has also been a beautiful thing and I appreciate it immensely.

Last Associate Superintendent Tolley told me that we didn't have to bring a formal resolution to get rid of footnote number four in the 2009 student assignment plan that changed middle college high school from an alternative offering to a service-based school.

And I look forward to getting that change back to an alternative school as well as changing interagency to an alternative school as well as a service school.

Those are good things to be celebrated but again it's only a first step.

Thank you.

Director Burke.

I would like to follow up Director Harris's comments with actually a question for staff.

We had a couple of concerns raised by community that these edits, these adjustments to policy could have an adverse effect on community-based organizations and require an extra layer of bureaucracy or delay in the work that they do.

And so I was wondering if staff could advise if this has any effect and if so how.

Michael Tolley associate superintendent for teaching and learning.

I have not actually been part of that conversation so I don't have any information and at this moment I can't think of any concerns but I'm sure if it was brought forward by a member of the community they have thought through it and have identified a concern that we need to be aware of and address but at this moment I can't think of any.

Thank you.

I guess my request is as we go through this work that we look at each of these cases you know we are changing something in the underlying fabric of the district and so every opportunity to exercise this revised policy is a test case.

and that we go into it with eyes open and if it looks like our unintended consequences outweigh our positive transparency that we take a hard look at this again.

Any more comments?

Director Peters.

I appreciate the comments from my colleagues and I really want to once again thank everybody for their input.

We did start discussing this I think back in February and since then everybody has weighed in.

I also want to acknowledge the collaboration that went on with staff and myself over this effort specifically with Aaron Bennett, Steven Nielsen and General Counsel Noel Treat.

So, and I appreciate what my colleagues have said about this being a first step.

We will see where this takes us but I think it is the step that is motivated by some really important factors and that is a desire to bring some really important elements to the process A very important process concerning how we treat our schools, our sites, our programs, our services, whatever you call it, these are all the places that our children call their schools.

And so whenever we do something differently to them or start a new one, it affects a lot of people in a way that goes beyond just brick and mortar.

So, what I believe we're addressing here is our responsibility for transparency, accountability, and our responsibility to the community.

And so, I look forward to supporting these changes and bringing not extra bureaucracy, but the appropriate oversight to these decisions.

Thank you.

Director Blanford.

We discussed this item pretty thoroughly in the last meeting so I will try to be brief.

I at that meeting shared strong opposition to this item and my position hasn't changed on that.

I did a little bit more research and found more reasons why I believe this is a bad idea.

To start off with I would share again the point that I made before that I think there is an unfortunate confluence of subjects.

The way that this item and Middle College, the closure of or not closure of Middle College, I think it's unfortunate that those two items have come together.

I choose to look at this item separate from that item.

I think there are some serious issues that we need to resolve that we need to have more investigation and discovery about what has transpired at Middle College but I believe that this is a separate item because I believe that it has consequences or implications that go far beyond Middle College.

Secondly, a second point that I would make is that in the two weeks that have transpired since I made my first statement I had the opportunity again to have conversation with more people that I know in Washington State who when I asked the question this time about is there any other district that has similar language and that we could look at and find out if they have had a positive or negative experience as a result of their language.

I discovered that there are none.

And that causes me great concern because I believe again that we in Seattle are not looking to our other districts if there are 295 or 96 districts in Washington State and none of them have language that empowers the board to micromanage in this manner.

There is something that we should learn from that.

And then third, when I think about the scenarios, there has been a lot of discussion so far about this being a first step and we evaluating what has transpired as a result of taking this step.

I think of this scenario, I think of a scenario where The superintendent or senior staff makes a recommendation to us that our program is closed because of non-performance, underperformance, suboptimal performance in one way or another.

And immediately there is a community of parents which you could find in any school in the highest performing or the lowest performing school there will be a group of parents and students who will strongly advocate for the sustainability of the program despite the fact that the superintendent and senior staff have judged that it's not, should not be kept open.

And we on this board don't think enough about the opportunity costs of overruling our superintendent in that case.

I believe the opportunity costs are severe.

Beyond the fact that it demoralizes the staff to work really hard and to come up with a decision that they believe is in the best interest of the district and then to have that overruled.

I believe that it also has the effect of making it more difficult for us to move forward.

And then finally I believe really strongly that there are opportunity costs associated with making those decisions.

If we are making in around this table if we are making decisions with limited amounts of money and we hear frequently that one program is closing another program doesn't have sufficient funds to do its bidding and then we decide to keep a program open that is performing is not performing adequately and supporting our students.

then we really are not living up to the values and the expectations that our community sent us here with.

I believe very strongly that we are as a former board member used to say we have to make really tough choices all of the time and sometimes those choices are not palatable, are not fun, but are necessary in order to deal with the limited number of dollars that we have available.

And so for all of those reasons I feel very strongly that this is a bad idea.

that it pushes the board into the realm of micromanagement which heretofore we've tried to stay clear of and because of those reasons I'm planning to vote no.

Director Geary.

I could also foresee an instance where our senior staff and our superintendent come and we do get an outcry from the public and we sit here in this room and we hear everybody's point and it is aired and then each of us will sit up here and we will have to give the reasoning behind why it is that we are going to make the decision and I don't assume that we won't stand with our staff and our superintendent.

But I do think that in terms of moving forward as a district it's a lot healthier for us to have a forum where people can come and be heard and know they were heard and look at their elected representatives for an explanation and that we are held accountable for an explanation to them.

and that we hold our staff accountable not in a negative way but also provide our staff an opportunity to stand before the public and give a hearing of sorts to the issue so that we all are on the same page, we all had an opportunity to listen to the reasoning and we made a decision and that goes back to my hope that we have a better understanding of our student assignment plan so that when we make those decisions we can make it in the context of a holistic program for our district that demonstrates that we are as a board understand what is happening throughout our city.

So I respect very much your your desire to stand with and support our staff and I don't assume that this won't ultimately give us a better opportunity to go forward as a district without the rifts that we have been seeing historically.

Director Harris.

Thank you.

I appreciate your viewpoint.

I do however really really really strongly agree with Director Geary that it is important for those of us that are elected to stand up and get counted and give you our reasons for our difficult decisions.

I really really really resent the comment and the quote about micromanagement.

I don't believe by passing this resolution when we have worked together hand in hand with staff that that is in fact micromanagement.

And I hope very much that this is not the beginning of certain folks at the Seattle Times and otherwise identifying this as a quote dysfunctional board and accusing us as micromanaging which has really caused a great deal of harm in the last 10 years for how this district is perceived.

Director Burke.

It may be a little bit of an oversimplification because a lot of the issues that face us are complicated.

And I think what Director Blanford was referring to, I recall Sherry Carr talking about how we make choices not decisions.

And what I feel this policy work allows is that when we make choices we should be able to justify them.

If we can't justify them we shouldn't be making them and we're holding the staff to the same level of of justification that we're asking them to help us justify choices and there's a there's a level of collaboration and respect there that I'm really proud to work with this team of experts and ask them hey help justify this particular choice and I think that level of synergy and dialogue is a really positive thing.

Peters.

Well I appreciate all the comments from my colleagues and I especially like the way that Director Geary framed this as a positive step to have a forum.

And I do want to point out that when we first discussed this or when we discussed this at a work session I put forth a PowerPoint and I gave some examples of in the last few years where a school or a site or a program was changed or moved or opened.

And it wasn't just middle college, I mean the list I used for that example was middle college, interagency, opened on Queen Anne, Indian heritage program at Wilson Pacific, the experimental education unit at UW, the highly capable cohort spectrum and special education.

So, not all of these were closures.

For example, the opening interagency in Queen Anne was one where ultimately I think the challenge with that was that the community was not engaged early on and it came to us with a lot of confusion.

And so ultimately, I mean I support the decision that was made by staff in opening interagency in Queen Anne.

But the board was not a part of that discussion and then when the public came to the board and asked about it we had no way of weighing in on it at all.

So I don't think we should assume that this is going to lead to any kind of confrontations.

It will lead to discussion.

I also believe that board directors are on the ground in our schools and our communities in a way that we are supposed to be as representatives of the public and we can bring perspectives to the conversation that should be able to help staff and the superintendent make wise decisions.

And so this is meant to be a step in a collaborative direction as well as being one that is responsive to the community and to transparency.

The other problem is when decisions are made without the public really understanding the rationale, too often people assume that something was done for the wrong reason.

This gives us an opportunity to understand the reasons.

This gives us an opportunity for staff and superintendent to explain the rationale.

I also, you know, to the point of micromanaging, I mean I agree with Director Harris' points.

As I've said before, one person's micromanaging is another person's due diligence.

I also want to say in regards to other school districts in the state, you know as the largest school district in the state I think it's okay for us to be a trailblazer on at least some issues.

So I'm not as concerned about that.

And I think that's all I wanted to say for now.

First I want to say thank you to Director Peters and all the staff that actually worked on this and also to Superintendent Nyland for putting this together so it would be where we can all agreed on the purpose why we are actually bringing this amendment forward.

This policy actually it's very dear to me because of all the things that I felt that needed to happen in terms of programs that were actually closed and not being notified about why they were closed.

And it's not the fact that we want to micromanage What's going on with the programs is the fact that we want to be sure that when any program is closed or any school is closed that we at least as board have the opportunity to be notified and see whether you know where is this all going or why is it happening.

What can we do to actually to help work together with the staff to be able to come up with a better solution a win-win situation other than just closing a program down and not Letting the community know about it and the board don't know anything about it.

So this policy to me is just a way of us being able to just work together with staff and superintendent to be able to come together and figure out what can we do better.

about certain programs so we can be able to provide opportunities and always looking forward to how is this going to benefit our kids.

That's the whole reason why we are here is because the kids that we serve are all our students and if we are not here making choices that are going to benefit our students then you know our effort is wasteless.

I believe that any decision that we make here as board directors it should always be how is it going to benefit all the kids of Seattle Public Schools.

As I watch many programs close, many of these programs serve to the needs of kids of color.

We are talking about closing the achievement gap.

We can never close the achievement gap if we close programs that are going to target those kids and their learning styles.

Many of those kids cannot maneuver into a regular school so that is the reason why we have alternative programs so our students can have the opportunity to learn the way that they see that fit their learning style that can actually help them to be successful in schools.

If we can't give them those opportunities then we are actually doing them a disfavor and we are also, this continued program is going to help our kids of color progress and be able to be successful.

As you heard many kids, many students came and testified of how successful Middle College helped them to be able to graduate and made them think beyond what they thought they could be able to do.

When we hear stories like that, that's what we are supposed to do as board directors.

Listen to the stories of these students.

that what has these programs done for them?

And to me that is the most important.

If these programs are making our kids successful then it is our responsibility to support and make sure these programs continue on so all our kids can be successful and not close them down for kids that actually have learning styles that they cannot be able to be served in any schools.

When these programs were created they were created for kids that cannot go to regular programs.

So I believe that this policy will help not only the board but also the staff and the superintendent to work together so we can make the best choices that we can on behalf of our students of Seattle Public Schools.

We are ready to vote.

Director Blanford.

No.

Director Burke.

Yes.

Director Geary.

Yes.

Director Harris.

Yes.

Director Peters.

Yes.

Director Patu.

Yes.

This motion has passed 5-1.

Our second action item is repeal of board policy A01.00 and approve board policy 0010.

I move that the school board repeal board policy A01.00 and adopt policy number 0010 as attached to the board action report.

I second the motion.

C&I chair what is your recommendation?

This was considered multiple places committee of the whole on March 14 C&I policy committee meetings October 12 of last year January 11 February 8 April 4 and May 9 of this year and was moved forward for consideration by the full board.

Any questions?

Comments?

Commissioner Ritchie, vote.

I do need to mention that there was an edit made to the attachment between introduction and action.

The edit was in the footnote section of the policy where cross-reference and the previous policy documentation was adjusted to reflect what should have been there prior.

Thank you.

Ms. Ritchie the vote.

Director Burke.

Yes.

Director Geary.

Yes.

Director Harris.

Yes.

Director Peters.

Yes.

Director Blanford.

Yes.

Director Patu.

Yes.

This motion is passed unanimously.

Number three amending board procedure 1430BP audience participation.

I move that the school board amend board procedure 1430BP as attached to the board action report.

I second the motion.

Okay this came to the executive committee and the committee reviewed the motion and moved the item forward to the full board for consideration pending the discussed edits.

Any questions, comments on this item?

Director Peters.

Okay, overall I support the direction of this policy.

I do have a couple of concerns.

One of them has to do with the plan to let students take priority in the list of speakers and I think on the one hand it does support our interest in letting the voice of our students be heard.

I would like to see how it works out and is there anything in the language that would prevent students from ceding their time to non-students?

Thank you Director Peters, Teresa Hale school board office manager.

There is not specific language in the policy that says a student could not do that.

So it's not beyond the realm of reason.

But just to clarify I know there have been previous comments on it that when I introduced the item and language that we have in the procedure students who sign up have to identify themselves as students and they have to actually make it into the speakers list so they have to actually be one of the 20 people through the normal process.

they would never, we would never bump someone from the speakers list because we have a student on the waitlist that will never happen.

But in your case it's a little different of a scenario so I couldn't speak to how that would be handled.

So in other words they will be added to the waitlist in the order in which they contact the district just like?

Yeah when we receive public testimony requests we first assemble them in pure chronological order and then we identify those people who are speaking to action items as they are the first group Then we would identify people for introduction items and then anyone after that would be just general topics in chronological order.

After we've created those groups we would then look for those students who have identified us as students and we would move them into the spots immediately following the first assigned student speaker spot that we have already at every board meeting.

Okay so the position of when the students speak is really what's at issue here not who qualifies for the top 20.

Right it's just giving them the ability to speak a little bit earlier in the meeting and I believe when the executive committee discussed it was to give students that chance to make sure that they didn't have to wait too long into the length of the meeting and such.

Okay and then allow them to go home and finish their homework.

I think that's where the conversation went on that.

Okay thank you for that clarification that was really helpful.

And then the other concern I want to bring up was something that was brought up in public testimony and that is the word ridicule.

There's some words given as to what is not permitted in public comment and the question was what does ridicule mean and that's an interesting question because there's a fine history of satire where some form of ridicule can make a point and isn't necessarily a personal attack or an identifiable personal attack.

Why are we prohibiting ridicule?

from this.

I would just note that we had a standing board testimony rules that have been located in a separate document on the website and we felt that there were a few points in those rules that we should bring over into this procedure so That's where that particular line came from where it says speakers may not use racial slurs, personal insults, ridicule or threats during their testimony.

And that's just kind of been a standing, you know those are seen as negative things within the scope of that list.

If you pull out ridicule as a separate thing we could discuss the nuances of what it could mean.

But it's, and it's also kind of subjective in the moment.

You know this is the board's president's discretion to to ask a testimony speaker to refrain from making certain remarks or to even ask them to stop speaking if their testimony goes out of bounds if you will.

Thank you.

Director Blanford.

So to that last point I just find myself wondering if me as the non-president of the board found something to be ridiculing, I'm using probably the wrong tense of that word but if I found something inappropriate given the given the policy that we have in place Do I have to defer to the board president or could I call a point of order and ask at that point?

I would in the procedure just following where that line is included it does include, it does list what the board president may do and so that really does sit with the president or rather the person who is chairing the meeting.

So in the absence of the president whoever is chairing the meeting is basically running the testimony process.

And so the board president may call a speaker out of order, request that they leave and there is a variety of steps as things progress.

Good evening, Noel Treat, General Counsel.

I love it when I get to come up and talk about Robert's Rules.

I think under Robert's Rules the process would be for you to try and call a point of order.

The board policy does grant this role primarily to the President.

other members of the body when they feel that a procedural or other rule like this is violated could call a point of order.

Obviously it would be kind of a difficult thing to do with someone speaking here and only three minutes and things but that would be the procedure if you felt like a speaker was running afoul of the policy and the president had not yet intervened.

And at that point the president would rule on the point of order.

President would rule on the point of order and then under Robert's rules if a majority of the board disagreed with the President's ruling that could be then overturned.

And I know this is a hypothetical situation because we know that our folks that are testifying are very appropriate and we on the board are very appropriate as well so I'm just wondering in a hypothetical situation what we would do.

So thank you for that.

Any more comments, questions?

Ms. Ritchie the vote.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Pinkham, I mean Director Patu.

Aye.

This vote has passed unanimously.

Okay our next action item Seattle Preschool Program, Dearborn Park.

I move that the board authorize the superintendent to add Dearborn Park International School as a Seattle preschool program funded preschool program And authorize the receipt of Seattle preschool program grant funds from the City of Seattle Department of Education and Early Learning in the amount of $220,518 and to revise the previously approved amendment to the service agreement to reflect the addition of the Dearborn Park Elementary preschool classroom with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary steps to implement this action.

I second the motion.

This motion was discussed at the executive committee on May 5, 2016. The committee reviewed the motion and moved this item forward for consideration by the full board.

Any questions?

Comments?

Okay Ms. Ritchie.

Okay so we are being asked to enter into an agreement with the city to have a Seattle preschool program classroom established at Dearborn Park international school.

And this is in addition to the ones we voted on earlier in the year.

So earlier in the year we approved adding preschool classrooms in conjunction with the city, Thornton Creek, Arbor Heights, Boren, K5 and there is one other one isn't there?

Highland Park, thank you.

And that's in addition to the three that we already have.

So that brings it, if we approve this tonight that will bring it up to eight preschool classrooms that would be I guess run by Seattle school district but run in conjunction with the city as part of the Seattle preschool program.

Alright so I understand that this proposal would replace two preschool classrooms with one and there would be a before and after school care program.

There currently is a before and after school care program so that would not be a net change there at all.

There would be a net loss though of a preschool classroom though I understand the current provider is leaving.

So I'm torn about this one for the following reasons.

We haven't completed a year yet with our partnership with the city in the Seattle preschool program.

We have the three classrooms right now at Van Asselt, original Van Asselt and why am I blanking?

Oh, the original one.

So we have those three and they haven't yet run a full year yet so we don't yet know exactly how well that's working.

We have some indicators.

We don't yet know whether we are meeting all the performance goals.

I think we are so far but there is still that issue of whether or not the full amount will be provided to the district.

There is a 25% amount of funds that the city withholds until the district meets its performance goals or proves that it does.

So we don't know yet if we've done that.

And so we've already agreed to add four more classrooms and now we're being asked to add one more.

And my concern is about the district overextending itself into preschool when it is not our main mandate.

Our main mandate is K-12.

We don't yet know how many resources we're using and whether the amount of money that the city is providing is covering everything we're doing.

So, I feel like there's still a lot of questions that haven't been answered and yet we're being asked to expand this program even more.

And so that concerns me.

I'm also troubled by the history of the preschool classrooms at Dearborn Park insofar as there used to be a, I think it was a developmental special ed preschool in that site that was moved to Old Van Asselt.

And then now we are moving in the city's program.

I know there are a couple of steps in between but it seems like we are giving a lot of space to the city's program which means we are taking on new responsibilities.

So I understand that the community does want to have preschool there.

I also understand that if we don't approve this tonight that another provider is welcome to come in and provide preschool in that space.

So it doesn't mean there would be no preschool there necessarily.

So at this point The amount of money that is involved is over $1 million.

I think it was $1.4 million for the first four and this is another $250,000 is that right?

So we are not talking about a significant amount of money, almost $2 million, 25% of which we may or may not be reimbursed for.

So I think we are entering into an area of experimentation where I would like to be a little bit more cautious.

And so I am having a little bit of trouble supporting this expansion until we have results from our initial investment in this program.

Thank you.

Director Blanford.

Ms. Toner I have some questions.

I'm wondering if you can speak to our performance thus far.

I remember you shared earlier that we are in line to receive the 25%.

Has anything changed with regard to that?

Sure so I would be happy to speak to that.

We have three milestones yet to meet they were due on May 31 so we are in the process of submitting that we have completed those last three milestones and then we will have met our target of meeting all nine milestones this year.

In my understanding of those three milestones are the milestones that were incomplete when we spoke on this subject before that they are just, I'm forgetting what the word is but something that is not outcomes based it's just we have to cross the T's and dot the I's.

Programmatic milestones.

Thank you for the word.

And also I'm wondering if you can share any statistics that you have on hand about the amount of demand that we have in the city of Seattle for preschool and not, I know the number is very high for preschool but for quality preschool I believe is probably equally high.

Yep so I think anecdotally you could talk with families about you know years and years of wait lists for kids to be in line to be accepted to programming for preschool.

You probably all have stories from your families and friends about signing up for wait lists.

That compounds when you have families that are in transition or have some other barrier to receiving high-quality service.

So we've heard from our communities that there is a high demand.

Where you get into the statistics around that is it gets a little bit, you know there are different buckets of preschool service.

So full-day, different grant funding streams and things like that.

But generally speaking there is high demand for preschool.

And so my questions may seem a little bit leading and they are in that I know that there is tremendous demand for high-quality preschool and I know equally well that The ultimate beneficiaries of high-quality preschool are Seattle Public Schools and the city of Seattle in that it becomes a lot easier for us to do the work that we are tasked with doing when students arrive at the kindergarten door ready to learn.

And that's my understanding is that's what happens in the preschool slots.

The other question that I have for you and this is the last one I think has to do with the fact that the city is asking us to apply for the slots, is that a correct understanding?

Meaning the city is encouraging us to allow for these slots to occur at Dearborn Park?

Correct the city is a partner in this work and has encouraged us to be thinking about where does, where is the right fit.

So when we have an opportunity where a provider has decided for whatever reason to voluntarily leave then we could potentially replace that service with the funding stream from Seattle preschool program and have Seattle teachers be able to teach those preschool classrooms.

So that's the nuance is that there will be SEA you know teachers, certificated lead teacher, instructional assistant as we've done at our other sites over time.

So for in my mind for all of those reasons for the amount of demand that's out there for the fact that we stand to benefit and the students of Seattle Public Schools stand to benefit and the city of Seattle stands to benefit for all of those reasons it seems to me that this would be something that we would eagerly endorse and I'm planning to endorse it.

Director Geary.

I'm also planning on endorsing this I think just as Director Peters pointed out that there are other preschools waiting to potentially fill the spot should it not work out we also are doing this on an annually reviewable basis and so should we need to have the program replaced with a different provider I foresee that possibility if there are problems.

What I wanted to explore here goes a little bit beyond this but I think it's something that I want us to think about in terms of shaping these programs and it's my understanding now that the city is partnering with the EEU for true preschools within the EEU program and that part of that agreement has been to maintain the ratios that the EEU has historically maintained in terms of an inclusion preschool.

And I know that's been a goal that we've been talking about as a district but I'm not hearing that we're putting those types of contractual requirements into the preschools that we're developing.

And given that this is now a possibility that we know the city is willing to engage in I just throw that out as we move forward.

If that is truly something that we want to expand the offering of that type of inclusive community throughout our district.

I'll be looking for any further expansion to include those kinds of requirements and even potentially with the ones that we've already set up as we renew our contracts looking to put those kinds of requirements in now that we know that the city is willing to do that based upon what we've learned or can learn from their contract with the EU.

Director Burke.

I have three points of question that I'd like to bring up.

First one starts with the basis that putting, should we have available space in our buildings putting in a preschool program is overwhelmingly a good idea.

And is it, what is, how is it determined whether we look at an SPP program or whether we put it out to an RFQ through a community-based organization?

Is that something that is a building decision?

Or how is that determined?

So staff brought that opportunity to the subcommittee and had the conversation and took direction from the board about what you'd like for us to explore.

But it's been a little bit of staff thinking, a little bit of board direction and a little bit of community BLT or school-based request thus far.

Okay I think that would be an interesting discussion to have as more sites come up to understand what are the factors that you know as Director Blanford mentioned a high-quality program like Seattle preschool or if we are looking at a reduced hour something that has potentially less coverage time if that actually is indicated as something that is more favored.

What are the drivers for that at the local level?

My next question so that we also don't rehash the same discussion too many times.

A year from now will we be able to ask are we paying our costs?

Do we have the financial tracking mechanisms in place where we can say we've spent this much we've been reimbursed that much.

Is this something where we have the indicators in place?

So, one part of that work will be addressed with our preschool task force because that was one of the charges from our board was to think about, look at all the financial implications so we are in the process of doing that work right now.

And then internally we have mechanisms where we have been reviewing and having a series of meetings to track the actual expenses against the projected budget that we developed.

So we are in the process internally and then we also have the task force addressing that exact issue.

Yeah, I'd love to at a future conversation when this comes up to be able to show historical budget trends that indicate that this is a cost-neutral program.

And then we've addressed demand, we've addressed finance, so what about customer satisfaction?

Of the programmatic milestones, do any of those include a community survey or a Do we have feedback from our users of this service that they're satisfied with it, that we can use as an indicator moving forward?

Anecdotally yes but hard hard data around surveying folks for their satisfaction no but thanks for the suggestion we could always get better at our work and asking for that sort of feedback is a smart move.

Right it's just that the more of these we put in the harder it will be to implement something like that so if that's a thing that we can make you know essentially exit slips for parents at the end of the year it can start informal but some level of of even quantitative or even qualitative feedback would be a good thing.

Director Harris.

It's no surprise I'm a little cynical about this program but I do believe that the resolution we put forth regarding the task force and having stepped in and seen the quality of our task force members I am absolutely pleased to be able to vote for this.

They have a very difficult mission with very difficult questions to answer.

I would hate to lose an opportunity because someone will fill that spot.

So this is an opportunity and and we'll continue asking the difficult questions and looking at in fact data not anecdotes a year from now.

Thank you.

Director Blanford.

I thought of one more question to ask.

When you use the term, when you were talking about the staff and the board working together I remember from one of those meetings that I participated in there was a really strong guidance from the board to ensure that the programs that were being set up were not, that at no point in the near future would they be clawed back.

to support our classroom needs.

And so I want to just verify that that is indeed the case in this particular situation.

So thank you for reminding us about that and this proposal is for one classroom because the current spaces there are two classrooms there but the before and aftercare has to take place in another space because of that so we brought forward the idea of just one classroom so that the before and aftercare could also be located in a more in that space as well.

So also we've worked with facilities to talk about you know what is the capacity of the and talk to us about the five-year projection and Dr. Herndon do you want to speak to that?

Yes so the five-year projection you know it is just that it is a projection moving out.

Obviously we will review the space annually but right now it looks like there is space there and if there didn't then the year before that we would certainly bring that to the attention of the school and the school board.

Any more comments?

Director Peters.

I just have one question about enrollment because I know that like Director Blanford you know it's my understanding that there's a big demand for preschool especially high-quality preschool and so that's why I was surprised to find out at the beginning of the year or after a few months into the year that the three classrooms that we established with the city were not full.

I think one was at 17 and one was at 15. Eventually I think they filled.

And I've heard that other classrooms that the city is running in its preschool program that doesn't involve the district also have not been full.

And the city is the one responsible for enrollment.

And so that would concern me if we are going through all this trouble and all this expense and we are only serving a minimum number of students especially in a case where we have taken sites that served more students and we have cut it down like in the case of Highland Park we are going from 40 to 20. So is the city still in charge of enrollment and do we know whether these classrooms, do we have any assurances about them being filled and maximized?

Yeah thanks for bringing that up.

A big thing we've changed this year from last year is the timing.

So we're having this conversation, it's June 1 and last year we didn't move forward with decision-making until about August 19 and so we were starting way behind usually.

At the same time there was also a pretty steep learning curve for an the city to enroll that was new work for them and so we partnered with them to help them you know work that out a little bit more.

So now that their processes are a little bit streamlined and also we have a different opportunity because of where we are in the school year.

we are setting ourselves up for better success.

Also I agree with you classrooms that don't have you know that aren't fully enrolled we are missing an opportunity for kids and families so we are working really hard right now to enroll the classrooms that you already approved so we are in the process of that and as soon as we have a decision about this then we will begin that work probably tomorrow.

Any more comments?

Okay Ms. Ritchie vote.

Director Burke.

Yes.

Director Geary.

Yes.

Director Harris.

Yes.

Director Peters.

No.

Director Blanford.

Yes.

Director Patu.

Yes.

This motion is passed 5-1.

Okay our next action item is motion to accept proposal to reduce slots from 430 to 400 as part of the plan to manage the 2017 Head Start budget.

I move that the school board approve the proposal to reduce head start slots from 430 to 400, authorize the board president to execute the required assurances and authorize the superintendent to take any additional steps as are necessary to implement this action.

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

I second the motion.

Questions comments?

I don't see any.

Director Peters.

I think we should address why it was for consideration and I'm trying to remember why that was.

Gene would you mind, do you remember was it because just the whole proposal of having to reduce the number of classrooms for students was something that needed a bit of explanation?

Jean Guzzi program manager Head Start.

Are you asking the genesis of the proposal itself?

I'm trying to recall why we moved it forward for consideration.

I'm trying to remember what the conversation was around that that led to that rather than approval.

I don't.

I was there and I remember if I remember correctly I remember that Directors Peters and Harris wanted it moved forward for consideration and not for approval.

And if I remember correctly there wasn't a reason given.

Okay.

Because I wondered that same question.

Hi, Cashel Toner, Director of Early Learning at Seattle schools.

Actually I think that there was some hesitation because of the timing for when documentation was submitted and so we had a bit of a conversation about that.

But beyond that I think.

Thank you that's what it was.

Yes, the proposal wasn't provided to us in advance of the meeting to the point where we were able to read it and that's what it was.

So this is what we do when we don't have enough time to process what we are being asked to do we say we will move it forward for consideration allowing us time to truly study the proposal.

Thanks for jogging our memory on that.

Okay Ms. Ritchie the vote.

Director Geary.

Yes.

Director Harris.

Yes.

Director Peters.

Yes.

Director Blanford.

Yes.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

This motion is passed unanimously.

Our next our last city of Seattle project service contract OSPI slash USDA summer food service program.

Okay I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute a contract with the city of Seattle in an amount not to exceed $645,041 to provide breakfast, lunch and afternoon snacks for the city of Seattle's office of superintendent of public instruction and United States Department of Agriculture summer food service program in the form of the draft agreement attached to the board action report and presented to the school board with any minor additions, deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the contract.

Second the motion.

This item was heard by the operations committee on May 3 and moved forward for approval by the full board to the full board.

Thank you.

Any questions, comments on this item?

Okay I don't see none.

Ms. Ritchie the vote.

Director Harris.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Director Patu.

Oh I'm sorry aye.

This motion has passed unanimously.

Thank you.

Okay we are going into our introduction items.

First one is renew contract BO 1539 with duck delivery for fresh produce for the 2016-17 school year.

What?

It says none on it.

No?

Yes he put none on it, I figure maybe it means that, see.

Okay, sorry about that.

2016-2017 families and education levy, FEL contracts.

I didn't finance our recommendation.

Yes, this motion to approve the families and education levy funded contracts for school year 2016-17 was presented in the Audit and Finance Committee meeting on May 12, 2016. The committee reviewed the motion and the majority of the committee moved the item forward for consideration by the full board.

Thank you.

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

I bring forward to you the funding from the City of Seattle for the family and education levy for next year of $15,469,124 that will be going out to 41 schools, 19 elementary 17 middle schools and six eight programs.

Five high schools, family support workers, nurses, out of school time and health clinics at many of our middle and high schools.

Any questions or comments?

I just want to point out that the funds for family support workers was increased, it was nearly doubled and I know that there was a lot of interest in that throughout the city and various communities in making sure that we do invest in our family support workers.

So whoever made that happen I think appreciate that.

I think we need to thank Pat Sander for that and speaking with the city and working with them to increase the funding by another $300,000.

That's great.

I guess no question, thank you.

Our second item renew contract BO 1539 with Duck Delivery for fresh produce for the 2016-17 school year.

Ops your recommendation.

This item was heard by the operations committee on May 3 and was moved forward with a recommendation for approval.

Thank you.

Pegi McEvoy assistant superintendent for operations.

With the board's permission we are bringing forward three annual renewals for commodities and we would like to bundle that together.

I would like to introduce Teresa Fields to talk about all three contracts.

Good evening, Theresa Fields interim director of nutrition services.

I have three renewals here for the 16-17 school year.

The first one is B01539 duck delivery for fresh produce in the amount of $900,000.

The second is B0538 with Giddy Man distributing for our bread products with the amount of $250,181.05.

And the third is B0540 with dairy fresh for fluid milk and dairy products and juice for the amount of $1,001,809.

Can we get a recommendation from Ops?

Well, I gave you one already but I'll bundle the other two as well.

We heard all of these on May 3 and moved them all forward with recommendation for approval.

And I will note that we had an extensive conversation about commodities pricing, about transportation of items, about how long they keep, a number of different subjects came up in the operations committee consideration of these three items.

Thank you.

Any more questions?

Director Peters.

So regarding the distributor of bread, I notice it's from a company that's out of Tualatin, Oregon.

And I remember this conversation and Director Blanford might remember it from a couple of years ago when this came up.

Director Martin Morris made the point that why are we contracting with a company in a different state when we've got bread makers right here just down the street.

We have France.

company.

So I think at the time we were told it had to do with who was offering the best price.

Is that still the case and does it still make sense to be transporting bread all the way from Oregon rather than finding something locally?

At this time it is still the case.

So we are asking for renewal of this contract and in the future considering

being local in Washington state.

Has the district gone to any of the local distributors and asked them to match the price of more distant distributors?

No that's not the process that we go through but next time we go out for our next RFP we will be actually asking to look at local districts to give points for that and that's something that we talked about with Ken Gotch who was our CFO previously and he said next time we go out for our RFP we should think about including those factors in the process.

And so when are we scheduled to go out again?

One more year.

Okay.

Thank you.

So in order to do that to go out with the different mandates under the RFP do you need action on behalf of the board in order to change something to make that part of the process?

He did not believe so at that time but when we go out for an RFP we are going to be looking very carefully at that because obviously we want to do everything correct in the procurement process.

Any more questions?

Dr. Harris.

I am disturbed that we are quote kicking the can for another year when we are using environmental resources to truck bread from Oregon.

My recollection is that we have some policies perhaps on the book that talk about green resolutions and I guess what I am wondering is how long does it take to do an RFP And would we completely kibosh your planning for next September if we ask that this be re-sent out under an RFP where those points for environmental issues and local procurement were addressed?

That's okay.

So yes it would impact the timelines and it is something that we talked about last year.

We have a process that we have to go through.

The contract is renewed unless we have certain issues and right now we have been satisfied with the service that we have had.

I think you are right in talking about how we want to be environmentally good stewards and this was the first time that we ever had a non-local vendor actually bid to be the lowest provider for us.

So it is a learning curve for us and we want to make sure that that we are environmental stewards so we will be looking to include that in our RFPF process in the future.

Thank you.

Director Blanford.

So that last point was an important point in the discussion of the operations committee and it bears repeating.

They did come in as the low bid.

And my understanding is we have some state laws that mandate also that we accept the low bid if it meets the requirements that we've outlined.

That is correct and that's why we go back to look at what are the requirements that we have in the RFP process.

And I'm not saying that because I'm not, I don't think environmental issues are important but we have constraints that the state law has placed on us around accepting the low bid.

I think we need to monitor very closely to ensure that the quality is high enough and I have every faith that your department is doing that.

So I will leave it there.

Director Burke.

I want to follow up the process question a little bit and make sure that I understand this correctly.

So there is an overhead cost associated with any RFP process and so this is a renewal of essentially a rollover or renewal of a contract with an existing vendor but they did rebid or they repriced?

What is new?

No their contract stays the same as far as the amount.

So how do they deal with cost escalations for their products?

They had some increases in products but they will not affect our nutrition, what we have on our bid.

So the dollar amount of this is the same as the dollar amount from last year?

Correct.

Okay thank you.

Is there something in our processes where above a certain dollar amount we RFP annually or is it case by case?

Actually this is an interesting one because originally the guidance from our general counsel's office was it was a three-year contract.

The board approved the three-year contract but we needed to come back annually.

our current General Counselor has reviewed that and said once the board reviews that the first time he does not necessarily believe it always needs to come back to the board so we will be looking at that very carefully talking with the ops committee and determining if we have to come back for annual renewals on that and here comes our General Counsel.

Noel Treat just to clarify the issue there with multiyear contracts is in my view if it comes to the board and it's clear that the district is entering and you are approving a three-year contract then you wouldn't need to come back each year but where we have contracts like this which are it's a one-year contract with options to renew I think because those options to renew are not automatic we need to come back to the board when the cost of that renewal is over $250,000 like is being done now.

Thank you.

Any more questions, comments?

Thank you.

Okay our next one is executive five-year option to extend lease for the center school.

Ops, did we get your recommendation?

This motion was heard before the ops committee on May 19 and was moved forward with a recommendation for approval.

Thank you.

Good evening Bruce Skowra, Director of Facilities.

So we are here tonight to request board approval to renew the lease with the City of Seattle for the center school.

The current 15-year lease with the center school expires on June 30. The original lease contains an option to renew the existing lease for an additional five-year term at an estimated cost of $16,996 per month.

And the monthly cost does include all utilities, custodial, and maintenance.

Any questions?

Comments?

Director Burke.

I'm just curious how this benchmarks to our other spaces in terms of cost per square foot.

It's kind of a unique lease because it includes all services, maintenance, you know as facilities we don't even support the space.

But when this came up it's kind of a unique lease as well because of the term.

And in discussing this with the city they didn't allow us the opportunity to renegotiate or try to put our standard lease language in the lease.

There's also no out.

Any out that we would have would be a negotiated out.

So it's kind of a unique lease for us.

That being said it's a very good lease for us because of the term and because of the amount of capital money that we put in when we first negotiated the lease 15 years ago.

The district paid I think 8.5 million in capital to redo the space.

So we got a very good lease rate and that's continued.

It gives us an opportunity to get a very good lease, a very competitive lease for the Seattle center basically.

But it is a very unique lease for us.

Director Blanford.

I appreciate those comments.

We discussed this in the operations committee that question.

Another point that was made that was reinforced is the opportunity cost of potentially going somewhere else would be prohibitive for us.

So the fact that That we haven't changed the conditions of the lease that it is favorable financially and that the opportunity cost of going in a different direction would be prohibitive for us.

I'll argue for let's sign it as quickly as possible and move on to the next item.

But this is our opportunity to get out of the lease or to renew for another five-year term.

One more clarifying question.

So you mentioned it was a 15-year with a five-year renewal.

After the five-year renewal will you have to renegotiate or is there another, is there any other option?

We have the opportunity for another five-year renewal.

So it was a 15-year with two five-year renewals.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Our next one is athletic trainers contract renewal.

Ops recommendation.

There are several items that are coming up that are all been seen by the ops committee.

We have been busy and they were all heard on the 19th of May so I will dispense with that part of it and just note that it was moved forward to the board with a recommendation for approval.

Thank you.

Flip Herndon associate superintendent of facilities and operations and I also have with me assistant athletic director Pat McCarthy.

This particular item is a renewal of the contract for athletics athletic trainer services.

It has been since 2000 we have been providing professional athletic trainer services for our secondary schools.

An integral part of how we help to ensure the safety of our student athletes.

Any questions or comments?

Can we get our recommendation from ops for this item?

Oh yes that's right you did say that.

I'm happy to do it again.

Oh no that's okay.

Director Harris.

One of my questions is we have club sports for instance.

Ultimate Frisbee where we still have some risk of traumatic brain injury.

Are we looking forward to address those issues as well or to look to the pool Mr. Stout to be ensuring those folks since we have a relationship with those club sports

The contract covers the high school sports so middle school frisbee wouldn't be covered under the children's training.

An athletic trainer would not be present at that event.

And that includes the high school club sports as well.

I would hope we could take a look at that with respect to reducing our risk.

It takes one traumatic brain injury.

to net a several million dollar verdict and because we sponsor these club sports I think that it is well worth our while to explore expanding the contract to address club sports.

We can certainly take a look at that in the future.

Any more comments?

Questions?

Okay.

Move on to the next one.

PTA 3. Thank you.

Award construction contract K5071, bid number 04671-2 for the Ingram high school waterline upgrades projects.

Can we get a recommendation?

The ops committee moved this forward for consideration.

Thank you.

Yes, good evening my name is Richard Best I am director of capital projects and planning for Seattle Public Schools.

And I would note that we have not bid this project.

This project will actually bid on June 28 of 2016. It is for replacement of domestic cold water supply piping for the main building, the gymnasium, and the auditorium at Ingraham high school.

At this time bid documents have been prepared and the project is out for bid but I cannot even tell you how many bidders we have on this project.

So we will be coming back before you on July 6 seeking your approval to move forward with this project.

Director Blanford.

And I believe there was a reason given for why it was important that we keep this in the cycle.

Can you explain that?

I do know that the project manager has been coordinating with the building principal Director Blanford as to when this work needs to be performed.

We are also looking at doing some of this work with our own in-house staff.

So this is the, we try to avoid having our projects compete with other projects in which that way we can get the best price for the citizens of Seattle.

And so this is the last project that we will bid in this spring cycle.

Any more questions?

Comments?

Thank you.

Next one is BTA III final acceptance for contract P5041 allied construction incorporated for the Green Lake Elementary lunchroom kitchen and classroom slash stage addition project.

Ops recommendation.

May 19 moved forward for approval by the committee.

Thank you.

Yes this was a project that was constructed by Allied Construction.

We are recommending final acceptance.

Allied Construction built at Green Lake Elementary School a lunchroom and a stage that also houses a classroom and then also a kitchen.

The architect was Studio Ming Straza they have confirmed that the work was complete in accordance with the contract documents and then the change orders were reasonable for this project.

They total approximately 8% of the overall project budget given that this is an addition and you have an interface that is with an existing building that is not unreasonable.

So, it's one that we'd recommend that the board approve at the next school board meeting.

Your acceptance is required for us to submit closeout documents to the state of Washington.

Three agencies, employment securities, labor and industries, and revenue.

Thank you.

Any questions, comments?

Thank you.

Next one.

Resolution 2015 slide 16-17 resolution of new limb replacement option for the Magnolia elementary school renovation and additional project.

Recommendation?

The ops committee May 19 moved forward with a recommendation for approval.

Thank you.

Yes State of Washington requires that projects that contemplate a portion of the building being demolished have a new in lieu of modernization resolution passed by the Board of Directors.

At this moment in time we are in schematic design for Magnolia Elementary School and what is being proposed is the demolition of the existing historic covered play area.

In order to submit our D5 form to OSPI we need your resolution acknowledging that we will not use that space for future instructional purposes.

It will be demolished and so this resolution is required and with the space being demolished it cannot be used for instructional purposes.

Director Harris.

Can you give us a sense of what the public policy reason is for this macrame?

It's a WAC 392347042. I do know that OSPI has had space removed from instructional use and the school districts have gone back and utilized that space for instructional purposes and I think that was initially what caused this to move forward.

But yep they require this resolution.

I think they have other things to do with their time.

Director Blanford.

Isn't the second part of that that we receive funding based on the amount of instructional space?

Correct.

Capital funding based on the amount of instructional space that we have so this resolution takes space that we are no longer using for instructional space.

It certifies that we will no longer use it for instructional space and therefore we will receive less funding potentially.

That would be correct, Director Blanford.

Director Peters.

So what will that space be used for?

We are demolishing, we are planning to demolish it and at this moment in time on the main floor there are four kindergarten classrooms proposed and then up above a library and art classroom are proposed above that space.

So we'd be creating addition in the current location of the covered play area.

The first floor of that addition will be for kindergarten classrooms.

Up above will be an art classroom and library.

It currently is just a single story space Director Peters.

Okay I must have missed something because I thought we just said that it was not going to be used for instructional space.

The covered play area currently is used for instructional space.

We are demolishing that space and so with the demolition of that space in the future we won't be able to use that demolished space for instructional, that instructional square footage will come off the books that we are proposing new in lieu of modernizing that space.

So we are proposing new space in lieu of modernizing that existing instructional space.

It's a nuanced distinction.

Okay and then following up from a theme from earlier in the evening is this was covered play space so in other words this will no longer be play space it will be interior space.

Will we have issues regarding playground space at Magnolia?

We do have a park on the east side of that school.

It's topographically it's much lower than the school and we are creating a paved playground up above.

It will be smaller than the current paved playground at Loyal Heights but there is a park down below that has a beautiful playground.

I'm familiar with that one.

It has great views of the city too.

Yes it does.

It has great views of the city.

It looks back at the city.

All right and then do we have agreements with the city regarding our use of the playgrounds?

Uncertain at that moment to answer that question at this time but it would be a topic that we would have to explore with parks in our joint use agreement.

All right that would be great.

Thank you.

Any more questions, comments?

Okay.

Moving right along BEX IV and PTA for Lincoln High School approval of GC slash CM contract P5084 to Leidig Construction Incorporated.

Ops recommendation.

May 19 move forward to the board for consideration.

Thank you.

So I would like to bundle two items here, item number five and item number six.

Item number five is actually the delivery that the board approved utilizing the general contractor construction manager delivery method.

And then item number six is Oh excuse me yes I'm sorry you are 10 and 11. Yes you are 10 and 11. And then item 11 is the approval of the GC CM construction contract with lighted construction.

OSPI does require that the board approve the general construction the general contractor construction manager delivery method There are three delivery methods that we can engage in as a school district for construction of projects.

One is the traditional design bid build which is utilized extensively.

A second method is GCCM which is general construction construction manager.

That requires approval by an organization called CPARB Capital Projects Alternative Public Works Delivery.

And then the last method is design bid build.

We did go before CPARB and they did approve Lincoln High School for utilizing the GCCM construction methodology.

The rationale is articulated as to why we want to use this project in the bar so I'm not going to review that.

You can see there are numerous points as to why we should use that delivery methodology.

I will note that Seattle Public Schools has extensive use of GCCM delivery methodology and has utilized it on most if not all of our high schools.

Thank you.

Any questions or comments?

Director Burke.

Thank you.

I had forwarded a couple of questions in advance and I'd like to follow up on those.

The second of these I believe number 11 is the one that refers to the funding approval.

The language in this indicates that the approval also authorized the superintendent to negotiate and sign a contract agreement for the guaranteed maximum price.

So I'm trying to understand are we approving a bar for $300,000 or $56,749,750 or something in between?

You are approving both.

You are approving a bar for $300,000 for negotiated support services.

That is the work that the general contractor will do.

prior to beginning construction during the design phase.

He will provide design input, he will provide cost estimating services, they will be attending the weekly design meetings to help guide the process such that we can deliver a project in the amount of $56,749,750.

That is a guaranteed maximum price that is articulated in the contract documents that they are to work to.

state of Washington does not allow us to enter into that formal agreement and have that contractor guarantee that price until we have completed 90% of the design documents.

We are at the very beginning of the design process Director Burke and so we can't If costs exceed that we would have to come back before the board.

If costs exceed the $56,749,750 if costs are below that we would make the board aware that we are moving forward with the project either through some type of informal board report or a Friday memo to the board.

So, you are really approving both actions and the $300,000 is not included in that guaranteed maximum construction price of the $56,749,750.

Thank you and is this kind of the sequence of the initial phase along with the total project approval is that typical for all large capital projects or is that typical with the GCCM model?

It's typical with the GCCM model yes.

The GCCM model we established the fixed price.

The architect works in his design to that fixed price.

The general contractor makes recommendations as to how he can, the different types of materials to utilize, the construction methodology, maybe how to simplify the design to remain within that fixed price.

But we have really established a fixed price for delivery.

things that are beyond both of their control or construction escalation.

And so that's where the state of Washington stepped in almost a decade ago and said you school districts and you public agencies cannot enter into that guaranteed maximum price until your design documents are 90% complete.

Because what was happening previously is you would go in you would sign these contracts and then escalation 2006 2007 time frame was 5, 6, 7% annually it was anticipated to be 3 and you could see two or three years of escalation you had a huge financial problem.

Director Harris.

Were you done?

I will come back to it if you want to.

Not quite, not quite.

This one wasn't in the list but I know you'll be able to do a great job on this one because this is intrinsic for you.

Can you help us better understand what it is about the GCCM model that incentivizes our contractors essentially as partners to save us money?

Help our projects come in under budget.

Well what helps in this process is you actually submit a request for qualifications.

The contractor then is able to articulate and I'm going to give you as relates to Lincoln High School.

He's able to articulate his high school experience.

He's able to articulate his historic experience.

He's able to identify all the team members so that we have the opportunity to do a background check on these and see what their professional experience is and how it relates to our project.

And two of the three, well there were five firms that submitted.

And two of those five firms really stood out above the other three firms that submitted on this.

But you are able to bring in qualifications as a consideration.

It's not just all price.

Thank you.

And then the last question is that in the bar it indicates that BEX IV and BTA funding totals about $93 million but the project budget is this $56,749,000 and the question is around the difference there and what are those things?

are authorized under separate board action reports or are they, where does that money go?

Yes there will be some of that money goes to design fees.

We will have for design fees and professional services that will, those costs will probably near $11 million.

Furniture, curriculum and technology for a new high school is approximately 3 million for each of those so there is another 9 million.

We have an owner's construction contingency of approximately 10%.

$5.5 million in construction contingency.

Then we have Washington State sales tax that we will have to pay on construction that is going to, doing some quick math will be $6 million.

So you can see that quickly adds up to the $93 million but those items that are above $250,000 will be coming before you.

Thank you very much I appreciate it.

Director Harris.

Real quickly you were using the mail pronoun he as the contractor could it as easily be a she?

Oh yes definitely.

Thank you.

Second do we ever get treated like the big corporations do in Olympia where we get to waive the sales tax?

No we never get to waive sales tax.

Okay last question.

could you put up to $56 million on the agenda and this might be better focused to our board staff so that those really big numbers jump out the page at folks.

On the agenda we don't see under 11 up to $56 million.

Those commas and zeros I think need to be enhanced in terms of giving folks an an upfront look because I don't think anybody here wants to wake up 10 years from now and have a Garfield redo.

I can work with Teresa on that.

I know what you are asking.

Thank you.

Any more questions or comments?

Okay moving right along BEX IV final acceptance of work performed under public works contract P5048 Arbor Heights school phase one project commercial structures incorporated.

Ops.

Ops committee heard this on May 19 and moved it forward for approval.

Thank you.

Yes and this is for phase one for Arbor Heights Elementary School which was primarily the demolition of the existing building, the removal of hazardous materials and then the site work to do the rough grading for this building project.

Arbor Heights is divided into two phases.

One was site preparation and the second phase is actual construction of the building and final delivery which is occurring at this moment in time.

This work occurred in the summer of 2014. They completed roughly January, February of 2015. Architect has confirmed that their work is complete and so we are recommending final acceptance.

Director Harris.

Quick question, have we ever put a dollar figure on what the delay at Arbor Heights because of various appeals cost us?

The delay on the steel has not cost us anything.

That was a contractor problem.

And a supplier problem.

There is a premium that we paid for weather on Arbor Heights elementary school and I can give you that dollar amount Director Harris I don't know it off the top of my head but I can put that in a Friday memo to the board.

I guess my point was my recollection is there were some citizen or community appeals that delayed the project is my recollection incorrect?

There were some citizen appeals I don't think they delayed the project.

That would not be true of Genesee Hill.

The citizen appeals did delay the project at Genesee Hill elementary school but not at Arbor Heights.

Thank you.

Any more questions or comments?

Thank you moving right along.

Bex final acceptance of contract P5036 Lincoln construction cooperated for the Jane Adams middle school repurposing and seismic improvements project phase 1.

May 19 ops committee move forward for approval.

Thank you.

So again this was work performed in the summer of 2014 prior to opening on Jane Addams Middle School again as a middle school.

The work was performed by Lincoln Construction.

The architect has confirmed that the work is completed in accordance with the contract documents.

We have received all of the proper closeout documents and so we are recommending that the board accept this project as final and complete.

I will highlight to the board's attention that the one-year warranty period for this work ended on September 8, 2015. What does that mean?

just that there is no longer a warranty for the work and it's taken this contractor an exceptionally long time to get this project complete.

I have discussed with the operations committee members that one of the changes that we are making in the construction contract is tying the warranty period to final acceptance to board final acceptance to give contractors an incentive to get their projects done and the closeout documents to Seattle Public Schools in a more timely manner.

Any questions?

Comments?

All right moving to our last one.

PTA 3 final acceptance of contract K5025 Western Ventures Construction Incorporated for the Plain, Eckstein and Ingram DDC upgrades 2013.

Ops committee heard this on May 19 and moved it forward for approval.

Thank you.

So again this is a project that was completed in the summer of 2013. We have finally got all of the closeout documents for this project.

I will note that the change orders are very large on this project but one of the reasons that the change orders are large is change order one was in the amount of $157,679 and that was actually a bid alternate that we accepted after the contract had been awarded.

We came back and accepted a bid alternate that had been contemplated in the bidding documents but wasn't awarded at the time the construction contract was awarded so it skews the change order percentage.

That's noted in the board documents that you have.

Why is it so high?

I do know it was for the replacement of condensing receivers, tanks, and pumps.

for eight different locations but I don't know Director Patu why it was so high.

What I can tell you is that that amount was in the bid document, wasn't accepted at the time the board at that moment in time approved the project and then was accepted after the fact.

And I don't know the history, I wasn't here when that occurred back in 2013. Thank you.

Any more questions or comments?

I move the meeting is adjourned.

Thank you very much Richard.

Thank you.

No, I'm serious.

Here's my reply.