School Board Meeting Date Sept 21,2016 Part 2

So our first action items approval of the 2016-2019 collective bargaining agreement with the principal's association of Seattle schools PASS pass.

I move that the Seattle School Board approve the 2016-19 collective bargaining agreement with the Principals Association of Seattle Schools and authorize the superintendent to execute the collective bargaining agreement in the form as attached to the board action report and to create salary schedules in conformance with the salary increases listed in the financial impact section with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the contract.

This motion was discussed at the executive committee on June, what is it?

Oh.

I second.

Thank you.

This motion was discussed at the executive committee on June 2, 2016. The committee moved this item forward to the full board with a recommendation for consideration.

Okay good evening Directors, Superintendent Nyland, I am Clover Codd Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources.

I am pleased to be able to bring you a PASS contract tonight for you to approve.

We began bargaining in the spring and reached tentative agreement with PASS on August 15. I want to thank the members of both bargaining teams.

We spent many many hours reaching agreement.

PATH did ratify with their membership on September 2. As you know we did enter into this bargain with an interest-based process and that meant that we were working in a collaborative fashion to solve issues and negotiate items that are aimed at mutual interest.

We wanted to be able to attract, develop and retain a high-quality school leadership core.

supports professional development and the tools needed for the profession.

We wanted to offer a fair and competitive package while at the same time taking into account the long-term financial stability of the district.

We wanted to create a culture of professional growth and development for school leaders that supports collaborative problem-solving and increasing our collective capacity as an organization.

We believe we have brought that forward to you tonight.

Attached you will find a red line version of all the changes that have been made to the actual contract.

The substantive changes are summarized in the attachment for you.

We have provided a comprehensive package with a salary increase over three years which includes a cost of living increase and is 10.3%.

I also want to note that we did take out the section on the principal achievement bonuses based on the scorecard.

You will notice on page 11 of the red line version that section is all crossed out.

That is no longer a part of the contract so I just wanted to make sure I brought that to your attention because I think some of you had questions.

So I will open it up for questions that you might have at this time.

Director Peters.

Thank you Dr. Codd.

I just have a couple of questions that I sent you earlier today.

One of them has to do with it says that there will be a special ed supervisor will be hired as part of this contract.

Will that be a new position or will that be a role that will be played by one of our current members of the staff?

Thank you for that question.

So the special ed, there are several special ed supervisors.

I don't know if there are five or six.

I would need Wyeth Jesse to confirm that.

But the special ed supervisors actually evaluate certificated staff out in the buildings.

We call them our ESAs which are our OTs, our PTs, our speech pathologists, school psychologists and their workload currently is about 44 teachers essentially that they are evaluating per their caseload.

So what we negotiated was that we would add one more additional special ed supervisor so that is a new position and we would also be asking principals to help in evaluating the school psychologists that are all meeting the performance standards so that we could lower their workload and get it down to I don't know 30 ish.

That was the intent of that.

Any more questions?

I was going to ask a different question.

Now having to do with the total pay raise increase which includes the COLA the cost of living adjustment is listed as 10.33%?

Yes.

And that's over three years?

Yes.

And just to clarify that's a compounded

That is and that would be a typical industry standard when we negotiate contracts that are multiple years that the raise is compounded.

Okay so the 10.33 is just each individual year amount added up but it doesn't give you the cumulative amount really.

I might need my assistant superintendent of business and finance colleague to come on up and explain that.

Meanwhile I will explain my question a bit better.

What I am wondering is whether the 10.33 gives us all the information of how much we are talking about.

JoLynn Berge assistant superintendent for business and finance.

So it is common in a contract to add up the three years amount so if we are doing 2%, 2%, 2% over time if you make $50,000 you get a 2% increase on that and then that new amount gets the 2% on top of it for the following year.

Does that help?

So the 10.33 is just the three years added up it is not actually the compounded amount in that way.

Okay so I guess what I'm just saying just to clarify 10.33 is not a total raise based on the original base amount it's just the amount.

You would calculate each year and that new amount would set the new base that the raise would be calculated on in the next year.

So if you made $100,000 2%, $102,000 for that year, the next year start with $102,000 another 2% added onto that it would not be $104,000 it would be a little bit higher than that.

So that was my understanding of it I was just wondering is that generally understood or does that have to be stated anywhere?

No that is generally understood I haven't seen anywhere different than that.

Thank you.

Director Burke.

I want to thank you and the team for this work recognizing that the minimal amount of drama is reflective of a larger amount of engagement and work to make this interest-based bargaining successful.

So thanks for that and please share that with the rest of the team.

In 2017-18 and 2018-19 there is a 1.2% COLA which is an estimated amount.

Can you provide a historical basis for what that typically works out to or how we came to 1.2 as an estimate recognizing that and I guess maybe confirming is that a liability of the district or that would be a pass-through?

It is our estimate based on the models that the state is modeling forecasting what the CPI inflation the COLA inflation would be.

So we just pick those numbers up.

So there's two points.

It's not a guarantee.

The state in many years does not give any COLA whatsoever and sometimes that can be adjusted right up or down depending on what the actual numbers are.

It's measured at a certain point in time and it's used as an amount that's an estimate only.

If the, that is the currently scheduled COLA given the current economic information that the state has to work with.

And then just to confirm that that is a pass-through whatever that is we are funded at that level and then we pass it through?

The state funds us for the amount of salary that they give us.

The COLA doesn't ever cover the true cost of the COLA to any employee in the district.

The COLA is always based on the total, it is on the total salary.

The state gives a COLA amount that is based on the state amount of salary that they allocate in their model.

And we know that we pay about 30% more per employee.

Thank you let me just echo back to make sure I understand.

The difference between what we are funded for as a COLA and what we pay out is the difference in the essentially the base salary and then they apply a percentage of 1.2 but they are applying it on a different base than what we have.

That is correct.

Every COLA that is granted makes a district's levy obligation grow.

Any more questions or comments?

Director Pinkham.

A question on the school and climate and culture 20%.

Do we know how we are going to measure that given you know again maybe one principal has already got a nice climate and culture are they going to be scored lower because they haven't changed it much versus one that doesn't have very much climate and culture and they raise it.

Thank you for that question Director Pinkham.

So in the interest of interest-based bargaining we also have a collaborative workgroup between PASS and SPS central office leaders that will actually be working to determine what makes up that 20% likely there will be surveys.

staff perception surveys etc. that would be making up student perception surveys or student surveys.

There may be other measures I don't know what those are because we will be working those out with PASS and making that determination.

But to answer your question, the other part of your question, if a school has a positive school climate they would definitely not be dinged in any way because it's not just based on growth.

We are looking at overall positive climate as the goal.

Director Blanford.

And are the indicators for the climate and culture, are they research based?

Do they have a basis in research or is it just one of the parties deciding on something that seems like it makes sense?

So Dr. Eric Anderson the director of our research evaluation assessment department will be leading that charge.

Everything I know about Eric it will be research-based.

He will be leading that workgroup and so I can't answer that because we haven't agreed to what it makes up yet certainly.

So embedded in my question is a hope that it will be research based because there is abundant research to suggest that climate and culture does have an impact and there are particular components of climate and culture that are most closely associated with driving student achievement and resolving achievement and opportunity gaps.

So I have every trust in the world that Dr. Anderson is both familiar with that and hopefully driving towards that.

And we will bring that information to the table when we are looking at what we are developing.

Great, thank you.

Any more questions, comments?

Director Geary.

I don't know if you, in answering Director Peters question, so what is the role of the special ed principal?

The special ed supervisor?

Yes, special ed supervisor.

So I am going from memory.

So I believe the special ed supervisor is assigned to a region of schools or a group of schools.

They support the schools in matters of special ed but they also evaluate what we consider those We call them education, ESAs I always forget what it stands for I apologize but those are our occupational therapists, our physical therapists, our speech pathologists, our school psychologists, the staff that work as part of the special education program that are out in our schools.

The principals don't evaluate those staff, the special ed supervisors do the evaluations of those staff.

And do those, is that a new position?

No we have, I think we have five special ed supervisors.

We are adding an additional one so that it will lower their workload in terms of evaluations and be able to provide more support to the schools and to the staff that are out in the schools.

Okay I understand who they are now.

Thank you.

Director Peters.

I just wanted to thank you for all your work on this and just point out three things that I particularly think are strong points of this contract.

One of them is the acknowledgement that when principals have to evaluate teachers it's a difficult task.

and there's components of this contract that address that, that addresses that fact and gives them the supports they need.

Because we've seen in the past that there's times when it's quite an onerous task, especially when a principal does not have an assistant principal to help.

So I'm glad that's been acknowledged in the contract.

Also I think it's moving in the right direction that the incentive that used to exist that tied principal bonuses to test scores in schools that has been removed.

I think that was not the right focus and it could lead to some outcomes we might, some unintended consequences.

So I'm glad that that's no longer in there.

And then again the climate survey data I think that will help put together different data points that will help us better understand how things are working for our principals and I think there has been proven to be a correlation between climate scores and how well, how healthy a school is and how well the leadership is functioning.

So thank you.

Any more comments?

Questions?

Before I call Ms. Ritchie I'm going to abstain on this vote because my daughter is actually a VP at Franklin so I will be abstaining.

Ms. Ritchie roll call.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

This motion passed 5-0-1.

Our next item BTA IV.

PTA for approval of the educational specifications for the Magnolia Elementary school renovation and addition project.

I move that the school board approve the educational specifications for Magnolia Elementary school dated July 22, 2016.

Ops.

This item was heard before the ops committee on August 16 and moved forward for consideration.

And then I would just note that there have been no changes to this board action report since you saw it at introduction.

Any questions?

Comments?

Ms. Ritchie roll call.

Oh I'm sorry.

Director Pinkham.

Again as brought up by one of our public testimony regarding be delayed until the school, use of the school may change.

And we did I think ask questions about that racial imbalance.

Was that ever clarified by creating the school where there is currently racial imbalance by actually creating a school with racial imbalance.

Was that addressed?

We are currently Director Pinkham looking at the boundary areas so that we can minimize the racial imbalance.

I do believe that enrollment planning is looking at four proposed boundaries for Magnolia Elementary School.

Let me look to Associate Superintendent Herndon if he can provide more information on proposed boundaries.

So that separate item was delayed so if you recall that was a separate item.

This is merely for the educational specifications of the building.

The boundaries are separate from the ed specs.

And that item will be coming to you later in November.

Does that answer your question?

Yes, so again the ed specs that were.

approving for now then is for what type of building?

So the educational specifications that you have before you that we are asking for approval are the architectural program for the building.

They are based upon what we call the three up model which was having three classrooms per grade level.

The educational specifications highlight where they do not comply because it is an existing structure they highlight where they do not comply.

with the current three up model that has approximately 500 students that would attend this school.

Currently we are proposing that this be a neighborhood school.

And the educational specifications are simply the architectural program that the architect works with to design the building.

And he has engaged staff at Catherine Blaine K8 and Magnolia community members in the discussions about the design of this facility.

Does that answer your question or help Director Pinkham?

Yeah so that clarifies that we are looking at a three up neighborhood school as for this site.

And it's currently housing what now?

It's currently a closed building and it's been closed for many years.

I don't know exactly when the school was closed but I'm going to guess it hasn't been utilized since 2000. So a long period that it's been closed.

Alright thank you.

Director Burke.

If memory serves there were previous conversations that indicated the final use of this had not been completely established.

Are we committing to an elementary school or is this something that still could be a middle school or could be a K-8 or could

We have always planned Director Burke to have Magnolia elementary school be a neighborhood elementary school.

I think you may be confusing that with Webster elementary school.

That is possible.

In Ballard.

Thank you for the clarification.

Any more questions or comments from board directors?

Ms. Ritchie roll call.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Harris, I'm sorry Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

This motion passed unanimously.

Okay the next one.

PTA IV award contract P1454 for architectural engineering A.E.

services to Integras architecture for the Ingram high school classroom addition.

Oh I'm sorry.

I'll do the motion first.

And then we have a second coming.

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute contract P1454 for architectural and engineering services with integrous architecture for the classroom addition at Ingraham High School in the amount of $2,723,719.

Wait a minute I have a version that's incorrect I think.

That's correct.

Is that correct?

Why does it say 900,000 right after that?

It was 2,900,000 it was revised between the introduction and the action to 2,723,719,000.

So the number I read was correct?

Correct.

And you can strike from the record the 900,000 that I just said.

Plus reimbursable expenses in the form of the draft agreement 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 contract.

Second.

The ops committee heard this item on August 16 and move it forward for consideration.

Thank you.

So the one correction to this board action report from the time of introduction is we were able to negotiate a slightly lower fee.

We were able to negotiate $2,723,719 in lieu of $2,900,000.

So we made that modification between introduction and action.

Other than that the amounts are the same.

and you have the contract in your board action report.

We've removed the term draft from that contract.

Those are the only changes.

Thank you.

Okay our last one.

PTA IV award Is there any more comments or questions?

Director Pinkham.

Just want to make sure how the trees are going to be approached in this because I know it came up when the last time this was looked at to expand Ingraham High School and definitely some people in the neighborhood were presenting concerns about the vegetation and trees in the area.

We are not looking at expanding the building to the west Director Pinkham we are actually looking at expanding the building to the north.

There are some ornamental trees none of them would be considered significant by the City of Seattle.

The land use code I believe there are four or five ornamental trees on the north side of the building that will be removed by this action but none of these are considered significant trees.

The area of concern previously at Ingram high school have been the trees to the west of the building and we will not be removing any of those.

Okay and does the community know that we are thinking of those as non-significant trees?

Do they provide input like no I think those are significant even though the city may not?

We are in the process of getting community input and working with an SDAT team.

But I know that the two areas that we were considering and we landed on the north location because it is within budget and we believe programmatically it is better for the educational program.

will have a minimal impact upon vegetation.

Any more board comments or questions?

Director Burke.

Is this work driven by a high school ed spec?

Yes it is.

What is the, will that be a site specific or will that be a general one?

laid out conceptually the addition based upon the general ed spec.

We are going to be working with a site specific team to then put into those details what those classrooms would be, how they would be detailed to work with the educational program.

We did work with the executive director for teaching and learning of that area John Helfacker, Martin Flo who is the building principal, Dr. Herndon also reviewed the initial layouts and we are now beginning work with the SDAT team.

Director Burke.

Thank you and any lessons learned or since I know that the high school ed spec is a document in development.

Are we going to learn things from that work that could further refine it or is it fairly well established at this point?

I think the high school ed spec is fairly well established.

We are planning to have some community meetings in November concerning the high school ed spec.

But I would just note for the board that we participated in the process.

December, January, February timeframe of this year in which we had approximately 50 members on a large committee helping develop the high school ed spec.

Very diverse committee from all throughout Seattle.

We had business partners, we had educators, we had CTE, special education, all the educational programs in the room and had a conversation in which helped us develop the current ed spec and now we are going to go out and present that to the community and get input in November.

That's the plan.

Thanks for the update.

Sorry about the tangent.

More comments?

Questions?

Ms. Ritchie roll call.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Patu.

Aye.

This motion passed unanimously.

Okay our third one PTA IV award contract P1454 for architectural engineering what?

Are we done?

I thought we already did two of them.

No?

Okay never mind then.

All right sorry about that.

Introduction items amending board policy number 5251 ethics

This motion was discussed at the Audit and Finance Committee meeting on August 18, 2016 and September 13, 2016. On September 13, the committee reviewed the motion and moved the item forward to the full Board with a recommendation for approval.

Good evening.

Andrew Medina, Ethics Officer.

And this is a proposed amendment to Board Policy 5251, Ethics.

It's pretty straightforward in that the only amendment being proposed is adding a requirement that an ethics officer provide an annual report to the school board.

Previously when the City of Seattle served as ethics officer the annual reporting requirement was called out in the contract with the city.

So when the district moved the position internally terminated the contract that reporting requirement went away.

Bringing it into the ethics policy just ensures that that annual report will happen regardless of who is serving as ethics officer.

Are there any questions?

Okay any questions, comments?

I see none so we are going to go on to the next one.

Thank you.

Elementary feeder school grant from the Satterberg foundation CNI.

Good evening board directors, Dr. Nyland.

Excuse me Kelly I need to hear from the chair of C&I first.

Sorry about that.

That's okay.

This motion was discussed at the C&I committee meeting on September 12. We reviewed the item and moved it forward with a recommendation for approval.

Thank you.

Okay we are done.

Go ahead.

My name is Kelly Aramaki I am the executive director of schools for the Southeast region and I am excited to be presenting this $300,000 grant opportunity from the Satterberg foundation for introduction this evening.

Last year the Nesholm foundation reached out to the Satterberg foundation to share their gap closing successes from their kids in the middle investment at Aki Kurose, Mercer middle school and Denny international.

As a result the Satterberg Foundation then met with myself and some of the three Nestle principals and some other folks from the central office to talk about how they could also support the efforts in the Seattle Public Schools.

One of the things that the principals at the three middle schools shared with them was despite the gap closing results that they are getting at the middle school level they are still seeing far too many level one students coming to their sixth grade from the elementary schools.

Many of them are students of color and so from that conversation the Satterbergs have offered to fund the lowest achieving, the most needy feeder schools in those three feeder patterns.

And so a total of nine schools, nine elementary schools that feed into Denny International, Mercer International, and Aki Kurose Middle School.

In alignment with the successful theory of action for the Nestle Foundation the Satterberg feeder elementary grant would focus on the development of teacher skills around literacy instruction as well as developing leadership skills for the principals In year one, nine of our highest needs elementary schools in those three feeder patterns will receive literacy coaching support from an assistant principal on special assignment.

That assistant principal on special assignment will also be charged with creating, with assessing the literacy instruction across the nine schools and creating a strategic plan to improve instruction and academic achievement in those nine schools.

And then that's for this first year but then the Satterbergs are interested in continuing the investment similar to the Nesholm.

So the Nesholm investment is a year after year investment and so from year two on they would like to increase their investment to fund literacy coaches to oversee literacy instructional improvement in those three feeder patterns.

Yeah so first year is a planning year and then after that year two and on will be implementation doing literacy coaching for teachers and looking at literacy instruction improvement across the nine schools in those three feeder patterns.

Any questions, comments?

Director Blanford.

I heard you say that the two components were a focus on literacy and then leadership.

Yes that's right.

Can you say more about leadership skills that would be enhanced in those schools?

Sure.

So one of our theories of action in improving instructional leadership in our district is around creating communities of professionals and so professional learning communities we call it.

And one of the things that's made Nesholm successful in their investment is that they lead monthly meetings with our principals of the three schools.

And so what we're planning to do is to do the same type of professional learning community work with the nine elementary schools.

And what it would be is bringing them together, having them going into each other's buildings, talking about practice, literacy practice and literacy leadership together as well as investing in professional development for those principals.

And so we will sometimes with the Nestle grant we'll bring in people from around the country to do professional development around how to lead literacy improvement in schools and we would do the same thing for the nine feeder elementary schools.

And so is that the work that Christy Scanderup is involved in?

Yes that's right.

With Nesholm?

Yeah so Christy Scanderup works with the city but she's also on contract with the Nesholm to do that work and so she does a lot of coordinating of the professional development for the principals.

And final question whenever we receive outside funding we are always grateful for it but we are also concerned about sustainability over time.

Is that an issue in this grant?

Yeah so that's a great question also brought up at the C&I committee meeting.

Basically the Satterbergs they received a huge investment from one of their family members and so what their intention is is that they would invest $300,000 this year but that they wouldn't continue the investment year after year similar to the Nesholm.

So the Nesholm's have been funding this work for years and years and the Satterbergs that's their plan is to do a long-term investment in the Seattle Public Schools.

So it won't be the typical give a grant and then have the school district try to figure out how to pick it up.

Did they say anything about the number of years?

They didn't say they just said ongoing.

And they are interested in making an impact.

I guess the other thing I should mention is that we are timing this to coincide with the adoption of the elementary literacy curriculum materials and so the plan is to do this work in alignment with our own district literacy department, curriculum instruction so that when the new material adoption comes out that we will be able to align the professional development and hand support to that work.

And then I should say also that some of the resources that are coming this year and in the future years will go towards resources so not just professional development for teachers and principals but also towards books and materials.

Dr. Peters.

I had a couple of questions, one of them is similar to what Director Blanford was asking about and that is the duration of this grant and whether it is annual, whether a match is required.

So you say it just says ongoing, is that stated in here?

It says in the materials that it just talks about year one which is the planning year and then it says after year one the plan is to then hire three literacy coaches one for each pathway who will serve with the assistant principal.

So I don't know if it says ongoing but that We can clear that up when we do the bar for the next one.

I think that would be helpful to know what kind of duration we are talking about.

And also so we can plan ahead.

So from what you just said is the plan to add even more FTEs to this in the future?

Yep.

Because that sounds like we are talking about a larger sum.

So this first year is $300,000 and they are talking about between $600,000 and $700,000 for the second year and then after that each year.

Okay and will this be focused specifically on which schools?

So if you look in your, if you look in the bar we outline the suggested schools and these were from talking with the three middle school principals and looking at the student data at the elementary feeder schools.

And so our initial recommendation is in the Aki feeder pattern Dunlap, Emerson, Graham Hill, Martin Luther King Jr. three of the four are level one schools and one of them is a level two school.

And then in the Denny feeder pattern Concord, Highland Park and West Seattle.

And then in Mercer we are looking at Hawthorne and Van Asselt.

If you look at the actual wording it says most likely to receive grant support and we put that in there because in this first year when we this year is going to be a planning year and looking at kind of what the school is working on each school is working on and it will be somewhat of a match if the school feels like literacy is the direction that they need to go in regarding their data and what their problems of practice are then we would match them with this grant and if the school felt like you know that math for example was going to be their main focus of improvement then we wouldn't necessarily force this work on them.

So but based on data these are the recommended schools for the three Peter Paddocks.

Okay and then my final question has to do with the employee who would be hired with these funds, an assistant principal on special assignment literacy.

Who will be hiring this person?

Yes that's a great question so myself and then Helen Jung who is the executive director over the southwest region plus the three middle school principals will be looking at people who are the people who submit interest in this position and it would be based on who has elementary literacy background.

and proven kind of results regarding closing the gap for kids in the area of literacy.

But it would be a committee, it would be a group of us principals and the two executive directors.

All right and this committee would be comprised of Seattle Public School District staff.

It wouldn't be the foundation doing the hiring.

Yes, not the foundation.

It would be done by the two executive directors and the three middle school principals.

And will this person be hired from within Seattle Public Schools or will it be another person brought in?

In other words are we going to be, there is a concern about as we mentioned earlier robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Will this person be coming from some other school?

And will we backfill if that happens?

So the intention right now is to just look from within because we really need people who understand the southeast, southwest region.

But when we do that search we are going to put an invite out to the current sitting assistant principals but we won't pull an assistant principal if there is not a contingency plan for putting somebody in their place in their school.

So we will look internally, we feel like it's important to find somebody who knows literacy but who knows our schools and can hit the ground running, who has relationship with principals because that's going to be really critical.

with the principals of these schools.

But it will be, it's going to take some planning.

We are willing to be flexible.

If we can't find an assistant principal who is able to do it right now we may shift strategy and hire a literacy teacher or somebody.

But if we can find somebody, our choice of doing a literacy assistant principal is to match the strategy of the Nesholm's which is to hire an assistant principal solely focused on instruction And then on top of that just logistically assistant principals can work throughout the summer so they have a year-long contract and so we need somebody who can continue the planning throughout the summer.

So that's the decision about finding somebody as an administrator to do the work.

But we will look for somebody who is qualified inside but we will figure out how to make that work based on who we can find to replace that person if we choose somebody.

Okay and then my final point is it says that this person would be on special assignment does that mean this would be a short-term position and they would perhaps return to their previous position?

Our intention is that it will be a long-term position but after the first year we are going to see if that is the right position that we want to actually lead that work.

Okay thank you.

Director Blanford.

I appreciate Director Peters question and I want to emphasize that I agree very much with the idea of trying to match schools that have a similar focus going forward because I think the worst thing in the world would be to dangle a carrot of a bunch of money in front of a school and say though you have a focus on math we've got this money as long as you're willing to change that focus to literature.

literacy.

So I think that's going to be an important piece to pay attention to as you're seeking to match schools and make the best selection going forward.

So I appreciate that.

It's also important I think to in the interest of not looking a gift horse in the mouth that we are very appreciative of the Satterberg foundation for seeing Seattle Public Schools as a worthy investment and wanting to make this investment and it sounds like there has been a lot of communication between senior leadership here and the folks at Satterberg to design the best possible grant that would go forward so I just want to publicly on the record state that I'm appreciative of that fact and hoping that the collaboration continues and that it results in a you know a collaboration that benefits both parties and ultimately is to the benefit of our students that are enrolled in those schools.

Dr. Geary.

Similarly I want to just call out that this is just such a fantastic opportunity and I want to thank the people at the National Foundation for going to the Satterberg Foundation and saying this is a great opportunity look at what we have done we really appreciate you doing this first piece that feeds into our piece.

So it's such a great collaboration and their the Nesholm's faith and willingness to go and advocate on behalf of our district should also I just wanted to acknowledge that because in your original presentation you called out that this came to us in part because of their work so thanks to all.

Director Burke.

I appreciate you bringing this forward and sharing with us and I want to thank my colleagues for building on what was a similarly rich discussion in C&I around this.

And that you know the gratitude to the Satterberg Foundation for putting their trust in us.

But I also want to emphasize that this is in some ways a measure of success for the work that's been done, vote of confidence.

Seattle for you know our initiatives our leadership I think you know the philanthropic community they're looking for needs they're looking for solid plans and they're looking for proven track records of success and for for an organization to put this sort of money behind an initiative is definitely a vote of confidence that we have aspects of those that are worth the money.

Thank you.

Number three approval of the agreement between King County and Seattle Public Schools for purchase of Orca business passport products metro transportation.

Can we hear from ops?

Good evening board members.

Excuse me I need to hear from ops chair first.

This was heard by the ops committee on September 15 and moved forward for approval.

Thank you.

Okay.

Sorry.

It's okay.

Good evening everyone.

I was a little excited to get up here.

So before you I have a recommendation for approval to move forward an annual agreement with King County for the student transportation ORCA cards.

These provide Metro bus transportation and other public agency transportation to all eligible secondary students.

This agreement covers approximately 8500 students and the price is $31 per month per card and it's a very good reasonable price compared to the youth ORCA card fare of $54 per month.

Last year we partnered with the city to pilot an ORCA card program for low-income secondary students and the city has since enhanced that program and will be administering that program separately from this contract this year.

And we have a link on our transportation webpage for anyone interested if they want to get more information.

Happy to answer any questions.

Any questions, comments?

Director Blanford.

I'll just say that we had a rich conversation at the Ops Committee meeting last week on this subject and it became clear as we looked at the details of it how beneficial this is to many of our students.

and ends up being, has been articulated in conversation today for many of our students that have struggles to get to school on a regular basis this relieves one of those impediments and so I'm heartily supportive of it and looking forward to voting yes next two weeks or whenever it comes up.

Director Burke.

Excuse me for just a second while I...

I'm trying to understand...

Where was it?

The...

The what it says around the ORCA business passport product where annual costs are based on actual student per ride usage from the prior year.

One of the things that I've experienced when my kids had ORCA cards is it opens up a world of transportation to them beyond just getting to and from school.

And is that something that is impacted or the costs to the district are impacted beyond just to and from school it's all usage?

When the student requests an ORCA card they sign a consent form in a little mini contract saying that they are only going to use that card for their educational to and from transportation.

Although we do know that some students to bypass that a little bit.

We don't see that it's out of control and yes every swipe of the card helps build in the cost for the next year.

What will be charged in the next year.

Director Blanford.

One other thing that we discussed in the Ops Committee meeting is family members are not entitled to use the card.

That is correct.

So what is the consequence when kids do use those cards other than what they are supposed to use for?

If we see that there is an issue we would contact the school and let them know that we are seeing an issue and if it continues we could block the card.

Have we had any incidents in the past that this has happened?

We rarely have.

That's great.

Sure.

So one of the reasons that Metro, Peggy McEvoy assistant superintendent operations, one of the reasons that we get such a good deal from Metro is the fact that one of the things that they want to encourage is students to learn how to not just use the bus to and from school but also to be able to generalize that use to other activities and that's one of the reasons they gave us a good deal and that's one of the reasons that gives us a little flexibility in allowing students to use it in some other ways.

So it was built into the whole process.

So you're telling us then they can use it to go other places besides school?

Yes we do not want them to abuse that but yes we knew that that was going to be an option and needed option for some students.

Okay thank you.

Any more questions?

Comments?

Thank you.

Next BEX IV final acceptance for contract P5058 Reynolds general construction for Kimball elementary school seismic improvement project.

Ops.

This item was heard by the ops committee and moved forward for approval on August 16.

Thank you.

Yes so this is for seismic improvements at Kimball elementary school.

I will note to you that the project budget for this project was $261,529 and the costs for this project to date are $412,801.

So we are $151,272 over budget.

We will be recommending that that over budget be taken from the BEX IV project underspend.

The seismic improvements that were implemented at Kimball Elementary School were roof to wall connections and then wall to foundation connections.

In addition we created some shear walls at that school as well.

This would help this building you know in the event we had an earthquake it would provide greater seismic stability to this facility.

During construction we did discover some at the covered play area.

Some structural problems both in the foundation, the foundation footings had approximately slipped six inches and so we did implement improvements that were unforeseen at that time to repair the foundation and then insert new columns at the covered play area.

That's one of the reasons this project was over budget.

Final acceptance is required for you so that we can file close-up paperwork with the state of Washington and then there are three agencies there that send us paperwork to fill out as well.

But your action is required to begin that close-up process.

Any questions?

Comments?

I don't see any so thank you.

We will move on to the next one.

Next for final acceptance for contract P5059 with A1 landscaping and construction incorporated for play field renovations at View Ridge Elementary School.

Ops.

Again this was heard by the Ops Committee on August 16 and moved forward for approval.

Thank you.

So at View Ridge elementary school we installed some under drainage in the play field there.

We created some new dugouts.

We put in new fencing and made ADA improvements to that field.

in the form of a concrete ramp between the lower field and the upper field.

This project budget was $900,000 and we did come under budget on this and we have an underspend of $78,591.

Your approval of this BAR will again allow us to file closeout documents with the state of Washington and then those three agencies will return their documents to us to complete.

Any questions?

Comments?

Thank you.

The board is now immediately recessing the regular board meeting into executive session regarding the evaluation of the performance of a public employee labor negotiation and potential litigation which is scheduled for 60 minutes with an anticipated end time of hopefully soon.

you