[12:09] OK. To that. Mhm Uh, All right, we're good. Hello

[23:29] everybody. This is Gina Blackman Taylor. I am calling

[23:31] this meeting of the Bond Oversight Committee on April

[23:34] 21, 2026 to order at 11:36 a.m. Apologize for the

[23:40] slight delay to start. Uh, let's do roll call. I am

[23:44] here. Uh, Chris G. Thank you, Chris. Al Lopez present

[23:53] present virtually. Hello, Sally Acord, I saw you. Yeah

[24:00] I'm here. Oh, there you are. Um, Jessica Allen, I

[24:07] saw you. I'm here. Hello. Hi, David Flatt. Thank you

[24:14] Margarita Gmboa Harris. OK, absent. Uh, James Halsey

[24:20] is absent. Nikia Jackson Hale present. Hello. Um, Walter

[24:28] Jones, present, thank you, sir. Steven Silver Krauss

[24:33] present. Thank you, Yvette Williams, thank you, and

[24:37] we are joined by Truste President Stevens and still

[24:41] our liaison, yes, ma'am Stevens, yes, welcome. Uh

[24:46] of note is that, um. Uh, our other David has, uh, resigned

[24:52] from, uh, the committee, so we are, um. Uh, David

[24:58] Flippo, sorry, I lost his name for a second. So, um

[25:02] we are down that position as well as he was the finance

[25:08] um, liaison. I have asked, uh, Chris to, uh, no, sorry

[25:14] I've asked Chris to step in for design, so we'll get

[25:17] to that part when we get to the, um, liaison representatives

[25:20] but we are going to be in need of someone that is

[25:22] willing to, uh, be the finance liaison. So if that

[25:25] is a position that interests you, um, please let me

[25:28] know, um. Sorry, did I have a question? Did I hear

[25:33] a beep? I heard a beep. I heard a ping. We'll get

[25:38] to that in a second. So we're going to get to 1011.01

[25:43] opening items. Uh, let us go to the flag salute. Mr

[25:47] Jones, would you mind leading us in the flag saluteute

[26:18] We are now, we this is that's the way we learned in

[26:20] school, right? That's yes, but it, it is all nicely

[26:25] written out here on our agenda so we can take a look

[26:28] at it individually should we, should we choose and

[26:31] and see that there is in fact no comma. So we will

[26:34] now move to 1.02, the adoption of the agenda, uh, as

[26:39] this is an action item, we can have discussion first

[26:42] then we'll take public comment, and then I will entertain

[26:45] a motion. So do we have any discussion on this issue

[26:49] Do we have any public, oh, did you, is that a reason

[26:52] uh, do we have any public comment on this issue? OK

[26:57] seeing none, I will entertain a motion moved. Uh, who

[27:01] I'm sorry, who was that? That was Steven. We got a

[27:05] second from, uh, Mr. Flatt. So all in favor, please

[27:08] say aye aye opposed. Hearing none, the motion carries

[27:14] that agenda is approved. We will move on to 2.01. This

[27:18] is another action item, approval of the minutes. Um

[27:22] we will, I will entertain discussion for a moment

[27:25] if anyone wants to take a look. If you have not had

[27:28] a chance to already, we'll give a couple minutes. I

[27:33] wanted to say something about the minutes from the

[27:35] last meeting. Yes, Miss Helen. Um, so I sent an email

[27:39] to, I forget who I sent the email to, but I was having

[27:43] technical difficulties in attempting to log in online

[27:46] and wasn't able to log in until I think 30 minutes

[27:50] after the meeting had begun, um, but I just wanted

[27:53] to note that I had been present. OK, um, and you are

[27:57] actually still marked present on this, on the minutes

[28:00] Do you want it not? Is that OK, so you're, you don't

[28:05] need to make a change to this? No, I just wanted to

[28:07] make sure that that was, that was in there correctly

[28:09] Sorry. OK, no, no problem. Thank you, Miss Ellen. So

[28:14] do we have any other discussion items for this one

[28:17] No, the other one, there you go. Red should be stop

[28:21] Blue should be go, but anyway. I would make a motion

[28:26] that we adopt the minutes, uh, from Tuesday, March

[28:29] 17th without correction. OK, thank you, Chris. I will

[28:32] entertain that motion for just a moment. Uh, sorry

[28:35] who was that second? Second from Steven. Yeah, uh

[28:38] I'll take the one from Nikia. Then I heard that voice

[28:40] first. However, I do need to, uh, take a quick break

[28:44] and see if there was public comment on this issue

[28:47] There was not, so we have a motion on the floor from

[28:49] Chris, a second from Nikia. All in favor, please say

[28:52] aye. Aye, aye, aye. great opposed. Hearing none, motion

[29:00] carries. So that is the minutes, um, moving on to

[29:05] 2.02. This is where we can talk more fully about our

[29:08] chair and liaison representatives. So first we'll

[29:10] uh, go through our list and then I will let you know

[29:12] what our, um, what our openings are. So L for construction

[29:19] Nothing to report on this time. Thank you. Thank you

[29:22] Al. David, on site selection and land use. Nothing

[29:27] to report at this time. Thank you, David. Yvette for

[29:31] community relations. It's Yvette Williams, um. I was

[29:38] in Portland for the last, um, 2 weeks. My daughter

[29:41] had surgery, so I didn't get to follow up with our

[29:44] chief of communications, Kirsten. We did have an, uh

[29:47] informal conversation though around identifying. The

[29:52] contact person and communications that according to

[29:55] our bylaws I should be working with, um, so I will

[29:58] follow up with her to see if we, uh, can get that

[30:01] meeting scheduled so that we can get that resolved

[30:04] Um, I also had intended to, um, attend, uh, two of

[30:09] the meetings, um, uh, regarding the master plan, um

[30:15] and, uh, I could not having to go to Portland, but

[30:18] I am attending to this week. And I know they have

[30:21] um, uh, have been, uh, very busy with a very busy

[30:25] schedule, um, uh, and I did wanna just ask, um, if

[30:30] you don't mind, Chief, if you are the minutes being

[30:33] attended, have you gotten any feedback from our consultants

[30:36] as far as, as far as, um, the attendance? Have we

[30:39] seen an improvement is basically what I'm asking. Brandon

[30:44] McLaughlin, Chief Facilities for the Record, yeah

[30:45] I was gonna cover that in 2.04, but, um, absolutely

[30:48] um, I wanna say last Thursday up in WAFA, an article

[30:52] just came out this morning, I believe it was in the

[30:53] hundreds, um, up there, um, Boulder City also had

[30:57] I believe, over 80, um, in attendance out there a

[30:59] couple of weeks ago, um, so word's getting out a lot

[31:02] better and it's in particular. Um, some of the hard

[31:06] to reach communities, um, we're seeing good turnout

[31:08] um, and growing, and so, uh, we're, we're really excited

[31:10] about the strategy has been. Thank you. That's, uh

[31:14] my report. Thank you anyone has any questions of me

[31:18] Well, uh, if anyone has any questions of, of that

[31:20] but Chris, you also attended one. Is this, do you

[31:23] wanna talk about it now or wait until Brandon brings

[31:24] it up? Brandon. Great. Great, thank you. Thank you

[31:28] And then, well, right back to you, Chris, on design

[31:30] So this is what I was, uh, uh, talking about earlier

[31:33] I misspoke. So with Rob Gordonson's departure, we

[31:37] do not. Have a design liaison, um, when I put out

[31:42] that offer last month I had still hadn't heard anything

[31:45] so Chris has offered to step up in this role, um, at

[31:48] least for now we, as we're talking about some of our

[31:52] board members overall, we are hoping to fulfill our

[31:55] bylaws with some of those categories that would be

[31:58] staff selections. I, uh, Valerie was kind enough to

[32:01] send where our openings were, but I, it does seem

[32:04] as if an architect or and or a financial person would

[32:06] be two of the. Um, specialties that we would want

[32:10] to look at, um, that can be a further conversation

[32:13] But for now, Chris and design, uh, do you have anything

[32:16] for us today? Um, the only thing I have on this section

[32:19] is I need to go back and research because in the 90s

[32:24] After we did the bond rollover. Legislatively, we

[32:26] had an interim committee and design was a component

[32:29] of that. We recommended at that time that schools

[32:32] include daylighting in their automatic construction

[32:35] And I don't know where somebody was asking me where

[32:38] that exists. So I don't know if the district's ever

[32:40] um, Adopted anything or if you are aware of any regs

[32:44] if not I'll continue to try to research that part

[32:47] just as a go forward concept because it came up at

[32:50] Chaparral last week um with regard to the redesign

[32:53] of the new school and the lighting and and so on and

[32:56] so forth on how to bring in the day lighting so that

[32:58] was the only thing that I have comment wise thank

[33:00] you. Do you have any response to that, Mr. McLaughlin

[33:06] Brandon McLaughlin, for the record, I'm, I'm not familiar

[33:08] with where those policies or regs may be and legislatively

[33:11] um, we're happy to research that. Uh, I'd say best

[33:14] practice and our director for design management would

[33:18] also back up. We know daylighting improves educational

[33:21] outcomes and so that's part of our standard slate

[33:23] of designs currently. And there were no regs. It was

[33:26] an interim committee recommendation that I don't recall

[33:29] if it was adopted legislatively or not. So don't, I

[33:32] don't wanna waste staff's time digging through that

[33:34] I'll continue to look, but if you've incorporated

[33:37] that in your design now, I will feel comfortable saying

[33:40] that publicly, but I didn't feel comfortable saying

[33:42] that publicly at the time. Thank you Chris. That concludes

[33:48] 2.02. So we'll move on to 2.03 report by the Clark

[33:52] County Board of School Trustees liaison President

[33:54] Stevens. Um, I'm actually waiting on our CFO to give

[34:02] me some information that I really wanted to provide

[34:04] I know that we have, uh, the board approved a $600,000

[34:08] bond, I believe it is to go before the debt commission

[34:11] Am I, do I have it right? Is it $600? 600 million

[34:15] 600 million. Sorry, and that's to the board for resolution

[34:18] approval so far. Oversight panel for school facilities

[34:21] meets May 11th regarding that. Yes, uh, so that'll

[34:24] be going to the debt commission and then my, uh, my

[34:27] the other thing that I understand is that we recently

[34:29] sold some bonds, uh, and, and saved the district a

[34:34] few million if I recall, you know, as part of our

[34:37] ongoing process, we look at our old bonds that are

[34:41] existing. If we can get a better interest rate on

[34:44] those bonds, we will buy those bonds back. The current

[34:47] rate to give us savings when we issue the new funds

[34:50] So what you'll see a refunding bond that goes to pay

[34:53] off old debt, and at the time that we're doing that

[34:56] again, we have interest savings on what we're purchasing

[34:59] back. Yeah, so one of the, the things that, um, the

[35:04] team has done a phenomenal job at is paid very close

[35:07] attention to the market. And understanding when the

[35:10] right time, the timing is everything and so they've

[35:12] done a phenomenal job they've they've presented that

[35:14] to us, uh, at our one of our most recent board meetings

[35:18] and so, um, the team's doing a really great job, um

[35:21] in being fiscally responsible with these bonds and

[35:23] the, the issuance of them. So, uh, just wanted to

[35:26] give you guys a kudos and, and let you guys know that's

[35:29] that's what we've been seeing so. Thank you. Um, yes

[35:34] Chris, thank you, uh, thank you, uh, Truste, uh, Madam

[35:37] President, to Rodney, what is that, when you do, um

[35:41] the interest savings that come about, what, where

[35:44] do you, are you required to apply them back? Is there

[35:47] a special account or, uh, anything related to fund

[35:51] 315 we're gonna use in our fund in that fund. OK, thank

[35:55] you. Do we have any other questions for President

[35:58] Stevens? Hearing none, thank you and thank you for

[36:03] the kudos. It is really nice to know when you're talking

[36:05] about this amount of dollars that there's such stewardship

[36:09] in terms of trying to get um as many benefits as we

[36:12] can out of that. Um, so that concludes 2.03. We'll

[36:16] move on to 2.04, Mr. McLaughlin. Brandon McLaughlin

[36:21] for the record, uh, I already gave a lot of my update

[36:24] with, uh, Chris's design update. No, no love lost

[36:27] though, it's fine. Um, the facility master plan, uh

[36:31] stakeholder engagement and community forums continue

[36:34] Uh, we are, uh, conducting 36, I believe, um, stakeholder

[36:39] advisory and community forums. We're about midway

[36:41] through them, um, and deliberately by design, about

[36:44] 50% of them, the first half here have been more exploratory

[36:48] Hey, here's the options, here's the data. Um, with

[36:50] community members in the second stage will be more

[36:53] about here's the things we heard and here's what we're

[36:55] offering up and based upon what we heard, so refinement

[36:59] of those options based upon what the initial wave

[37:01] of community feedback has been. So, um, to answer

[37:04] your and reiterate your question earlier, yes, we

[37:06] are having great attendance at these. Uh, I think

[37:09] I would task everyone in this room. We are all responsible

[37:12] to get our communities out there. I think if there's

[37:15] words being said that a certain community isn't making

[37:17] out to it, we have some of the greatest, I think, public

[37:20] outreach firms as a part of this team effort, and

[37:22] so they can only take the message so far. It's, it's

[37:25] incumbent on me. It's incumbent upon people on the

[37:27] dice that, uh, we let our neighbors know and if they

[37:30] have a vested interest or want to care about this

[37:32] we can invite them to the community meetings that

[37:35] we are aware of. So, um, we continue to enter into

[37:38] this next wave where really it's about refinement

[37:40] of those draft options, preliminary draft options

[37:42] we continue to talk about, uh, and futures that don't

[37:45] yet exist for some of our school buildings, whether

[37:47] that be as public education buildings or some other

[37:50] community benefit, um, so a lot of those discussions

[37:53] have been healthy and actually been very collaborative

[37:56] around what some of those other uses of our buildings

[37:58] may want to become, um, so we're just grateful for

[38:01] the community members that have come out and spoken

[38:03] about this and really it's been a good. Though this

[38:05] is about the buildings, um, it really has been opening

[38:08] the doors and the eyes about things outside of the

[38:10] building and frankly within the building that have

[38:13] nothing to do with the building though, um, so we

[38:16] try to focus it, but very much it's been a good tool

[38:19] to maybe leverage some, um, things that just need

[38:22] to be said, um, and so we're grateful for, for those

[38:25] conversations, but. Um, also, we're able to redirect

[38:28] some of those comments, clarifications to long-standing

[38:31] beliefs, thoughts, um, around maybe what's true today

[38:34] So, um, I just wanted to give a simple update about

[38:37] the FMP that, that they are being well attended and

[38:39] we're grateful for this next wave of them to start

[38:43] um, on the 27th next week that what we're calling

[38:46] 2.2, the, the share back tour. 2.2. So the 2.2 share

[38:53] back tour hasn't begun yet, right? We have, uh, 3

[38:57] or 4 more events, um, it's part of the 2.1 series

[39:02] of public engagement, um, through this week and then

[39:04] next Monday starts the 2.2, the, the second wave of

[39:08] engagement. OK, um, was that, yeah, was that a question

[39:12] online? Uh, Nikia, was that you? You had a question

[39:17] or a comment or so I just, yeah, I just had a comment

[39:20] So I did go to the website earlier this week and the

[39:23] QR code that was on the website was not working for

[39:27] people to go to be able to sign up for those sessions

[39:30] So I did point that out to communications. So they

[39:33] did resolve that. So it should not be an issue now

[39:36] for people that are wanting to sign up to attend. Thank

[39:40] you, Nikia. Um, yes, Ms. Williams. Push button on

[39:46] and off. Um, I need a tech up here to push my buttons

[39:50] Um. I have a question and this is, this is beyond

[39:55] you know, I'm always forward thinking, right? Um, so

[39:58] we're capturing some really I think valuable information

[40:01] you basically raised raised the point Brandon, when

[40:04] you mentioned, you know, they're speaking about things

[40:07] outside of the building. Uh, but important feedback

[40:10] that we're getting, are we capturing that feedback

[40:13] in some way that will help to benefit us and our, our

[40:17] charge, um, around things such as, are you hearing

[40:21] I work a lot with kids, so I'm, I'm around a lot of

[40:24] the student population and so they share information

[40:28] and so the students that are attending, uh, probably

[40:31] are giving those kinds of feedback because we've tried

[40:33] to be pretty clear with them on what the purpose of

[40:36] these meetings are for, um. But if they're raising

[40:41] things like outside of what this contract or this

[40:45] this work is, which is the master plan, such as maybe

[40:49] they're talking about let's just say uh security their

[40:53] their their cameras and their security system doesn't

[40:55] work, it sucks. I mean, you know, that's how they

[40:58] talk. I'm talking like they speak so so are we going

[41:02] to be able to get. Are you, will your, will the consultant

[41:06] be able to provide you with some of this kind of feedback

[41:09] information that would help inform better inform us

[41:12] in our, in our work and in our projections of future

[41:16] work and uh budget and, and all of that to be able

[41:19] to deal with some of these issues that maybe we weren't

[41:22] quite aware of. Yeah, it's actually a very timely

[41:25] discussion. Uh, we don't know what the deliverable

[41:27] would look like quite yet, but, um, just like probably

[41:30] many of you saw as a part of the strategic plan effort

[41:34] as a district-wide strategic plan, there was a 40-page

[41:36] document that was widely published about here's what

[41:38] we've heard, um, so very much we're, we're thinking

[41:42] about what that document may look like in this work

[41:44] because I think, yeah, there would be a good, this

[41:46] would be a nice inflection point to really. Um, capitalize

[41:50] on what it is we heard in this first wave moving forward

[41:53] and what we're gonna do about it. That way if I'm

[41:55] a community member, it's not just my words empty on

[41:57] a, on a hall or on a page that I left in some library

[42:01] somewhere, it's, no, here's what they said and here's

[42:03] what they're actually doing with it. And so, um, before

[42:06] I conclude that, I will say there has been a lot of

[42:08] student participation and frankly, no offense to all

[42:11] the adults in the room, the students stay focused

[42:12] better than the adults, so. They don't say my security

[42:16] camera sucks, resoundingly, they say, I love my artificial

[42:19] turf field. If I had like a, a tick box for every

[42:22] time I heard the things not to do with the building

[42:25] but enhances their student experience, that would

[42:27] be, that would be one that stands out, is we will

[42:30] love purposeful outdoor spaces. So, we're hoping to

[42:33] capture some of. That, um, within it, but they've

[42:35] some of the student groups have had fantastic responses

[42:38] to that column D of what else should we be considering

[42:42] Hey, have you guys thought about improving the courtyard

[42:43] of my building? Leave the rest of it alone, but we

[42:45] just want somewhere to go outside of these four walls

[42:47] Um, that's the type of stuff we want to capture and

[42:49] and we'll try to produce that in the next couple of

[42:51] weeks. Great, thank you. Important information. Yes

[42:57] Chris, um, thank you. Yeah, I think they got off to

[43:00] a slow start, not that the, the company that we hired

[43:03] or you all hired, they've done a phenomenal job, and

[43:05] I have to say. Very well informed, good presentation

[43:08] excellent discussion. Uh, Rick was at our last one

[43:11] at SHAP, and, and I just, uh, it made me feel that

[43:14] if the public took time to engage, they would feel

[43:17] much more comfortable about what the district's doing

[43:20] I'd heard criticisms, you know, 2 people here, 3 people

[43:23] there, then we heard MAPA, SHAP, and a couple other

[43:26] ones. So I think it's mountingly starting to get into

[43:29] people's minds. Um, I know I'm gonna go, go to one

[43:32] in May, but, um, in, in. The real world, we, I don't

[43:40] want people to be afraid and that you can't control

[43:42] the press, but the way the press was initially rolling

[43:44] out the workshops and the meetings was as if every

[43:48] school was going to be closed in Clark County and

[43:51] how dare you waste money and it just was not. What

[43:54] that's typical of some of the press in in in reality

[43:57] so I'm glad to hear that there's actual documentation

[44:00] that we can show the people have been actually engaged

[44:03] and have made certain recommendations, um, and so

[44:06] forth. Some things we heard, um, I heard, and I don't

[44:09] I have to remember that Fremont was supposed to have

[44:12] been a K-8 and someplace that changed, but I remember

[44:15] the public had wanted that. And I don't know where

[44:18] that disconnect came in, but that's just something

[44:20] to file that might come back up at some point to say

[44:23] what did, why did, why did they ignore what the public

[44:26] recommended at that time versus what was there. The

[44:29] facility is great, it's up the street for me, but

[44:31] I, I, I went to the meetings and the parents were

[44:33] very, very adamant about what they wanted. But mostly

[44:37] it was don't move our kids out of here. Um, so that

[44:41] was just part one. Part two, it came up at our. At

[44:45] SHP last week has ASAC. Has the district actually

[44:51] returned all students back to their neighborhood schools

[44:55] Through Through, um, zoning. In other words, because

[45:00] it's going to come up with the west side, um, and

[45:03] I talked briefly to Senator Neil at the time, you

[45:06] don't want to lose the, the, the recommendations and

[45:09] the neighborhood field that was recommended from the

[45:11] original DSEG, for example, and that conversation

[45:15] Came up in our small group is have we now at least

[45:19] could we comfortably say all kids within their school

[45:22] zone, that's where they, their neighborhood is and

[45:24] that's where they're they would normally be assigned

[45:27] rather than their them being assigned to a school

[45:29] where they're already bussed to. And so I don't know

[45:32] the answer to that, but that's another thing to maybe

[45:35] think about with staff because that may come back

[45:37] up at some point in time as well. Hogarth's an example

[45:43] They're bus to my neighborhood miles away. Yeah. And

[45:46] if, so if, if you're going to do, if we're going to

[45:49] do something as a district, that should be a number

[45:51] one goal is to return those kids to their neighborhood

[45:54] schools before you look at where they're being bussed

[45:57] to, I guess is really what I'm trying to say. Thank

[45:59] you. Yeah, I think we can follow up on a lot of that

[46:03] I, I will say as a result of some of the public comment

[46:06] we heard, um, in March, we did begin to explore some

[46:09] of that, and yeah, there's a very, very low that are

[46:12] still opting to attend their out of neighborhood zone

[46:15] areas, but that's something, yeah, the facility master

[46:18] plan may start to peek into, and yeah, many of them

[46:21] are choosing to stay within their more neighborhood

[46:24] schools at this point, so. If that's culturally what's

[46:27] going on, maybe we just have a recommendation. Maybe

[46:29] we acknowledge that if that's the case, but truly

[46:34] the recommendation had been done as we phased out

[46:36] of the DSEG was all kids should really be zoned for

[46:40] their school in their neighborhood and. Then you work

[46:42] on where your population is causing the need for additional

[46:46] overcrowdings and so on and so forth without the bussing

[46:49] component if you've returned them at least to their

[46:51] neighborhood school and so that was the conversation

[46:55] that I think we'd want to make sure that we were promoting

[46:58] um, at least that came up in our resoundingly in the

[47:02] group I was working with. Thank you. Yes, Yvette. Just

[47:06] piggybacking off of Chris's comments, um. I think

[47:11] just going back to what the community has always said

[47:14] they wanted, particularly on the west side, is they

[47:17] want high performing schools and so if this, if the

[47:19] plan, if the whole purpose of the baster plan I guess

[47:22] is what I'm saying to wrap this up in a nice little

[47:24] bow, if that's the plan is to create a, a destination

[47:28] uh, for students at their school, then each school

[47:31] should be a destination school then they shouldn't

[47:34] need to be bussed and so going to what you're saying

[47:38] and so I think, um. I think with good planning and

[47:43] and we'd be able to do that and provide them with

[47:45] a a fantastic school so they don't have to go to a

[47:47] gray elementary um from the west side because they

[47:51] have a that kind of program in their neighborhood

[47:55] at their neighborhood school so that was it. I just

[47:57] wanted to kinda tie that together. Thank you. Do we

[48:02] have any other further comment from online or in person

[48:07] Um, I will say I appreciate these conversations. I've

[48:11] long been a, a, a big proponent of a, of a town hall

[48:15] uh, sort of conversation. I find that in general when

[48:19] people are able to get their questions answered if

[48:21] they feel a bigger trust in the process versus the

[48:24] public comment that happens in a meeting that we're

[48:27] required to. Sort of be uh neutral about so to be

[48:31] able to have a feedback and a conversation where then

[48:34] people are able to see their comments and suggestions

[48:39] being incorporated into future decision making is

[48:41] a really positive thing um I also appreciate your

[48:44] nod to talking about that I know from from. The school's

[48:49] point of view, the idea of being siloed in terms of

[48:52] hey, this is our our conversation about construction

[48:55] and facility master plan, and it's not necessarily

[48:58] about some of these other things, but knowing that

[49:00] the public will take advantage of any opportunity

[49:03] to sort of interact with, with uh. With people from

[49:07] CCSD, I'm really glad that the trustees have continued

[49:10] their sort of dream reach outs and the way that these

[49:13] incorporate so the way in which any of these outreaches

[49:17] to the community continue to try and share whatever

[49:20] information you get that is pertinent to other departments

[49:23] if they get information that becomes pertinent to

[49:25] facilities that there continues to be hopefully informa

[49:28] information sharing on the back end because the public

[49:31] doesn't necessarily. Make those same kind of distinctions

[49:35] that are in the departments um and my only other question

[49:40] when it comes to this is I know one thing that we

[49:43] tried to do in the past was really engage the SOTs

[49:46] as a method of reaching out to some of the most engaged

[49:50] parent communities and and teacher communities at

[49:53] each of these schools. I don't know if the outreach

[49:56] plan has commu has. Involved a deliberate outreach

[50:01] through the SOT channels. I don't know if that's a

[50:04] question that you can answer, um, but if not, I would

[50:07] hope that, um, we do incorporate using those those

[50:11] channels to sort of reach out, uh, in that way. Do

[50:15] you know if they've reached out deliberately to SOTs

[50:18] Brandon McLaughlin, we have not utilized the SOT pathway

[50:22] though I will say a vast majority of our, uh, stakeholder

[50:25] advisories, as well as our community forums are intended

[50:28] by SOT members. Uh, and why that is, is the SOTs have

[50:32] a clear and distinct route. We wanna make sure that

[50:34] they stay focused on what their route is, and that's

[50:37] operational management with in partnership with the

[50:40] school principal and so. I think infusing things like

[50:43] facilities into it though it's germane to it, uh, I

[50:47] think merely just derails that conversation between

[50:50] parents and, and the principal, but again, all of

[50:54] those members are free to attend the community forums

[50:57] and a vast majority of them are on stakeholder advisory

[51:00] groups, so I'm certain that voice is coming through

[51:03] loud and clear. Um, yeah, and it's not so much it's

[51:06] more of. Having sat on SOT for several years, having

[51:11] also been a part of the PTA, um, including leaning

[51:15] that, those are, those are the groups that involve

[51:17] those stakeholders and are often a communication conduit

[51:21] so I have just found that in our experience in reaching

[51:24] out, the closer you can get to the population you

[51:27] want to respond. And and those are the people that

[51:30] reach out to their community and say hey make sure

[51:33] you're doing this um I think it's it's more of a of

[51:38] a communication strategy and how we outreach to those

[51:41] schools beyond just Facebook or or emails or one of

[51:44] those other things if we. If we have a communication

[51:47] strategy that includes reaching out to SOTs and or

[51:50] PTAs slash PTOs, that that is another method of just

[51:55] getting the word out about the existence of these

[51:57] meetings more than just what's on Facebook or what

[52:00] comes from the district themselves. Um Any other comments

[52:06] on 2.04? Do you have any other topic under that, Mr

[52:12] McLaughlin? All right, we shall move on to 2.05. Take

[52:17] it away, Mr. Fouts. Rodney Fels, for the record, uh

[52:22] there's not much to report this month of February

[52:25] Uh, as I've stated, our last issuance took place in

[52:27] March, which we'll be reporting next month. Uh, Essentially

[52:31] we're at $4.4 billion in resources. We have expense

[52:35] to date just under $4.2 billion with $303 million

[52:41] which is encumbered. Uh, if you take those two numbers

[52:45] together, that comes to just under $4.5 billion. So

[52:50] our current cash flow is $232 million. However, again

[52:54] as I state, when you take in those encumbered funds

[52:57] we would actually be in the negative with about $71

[53:01] million. Again, because the funds are encumbered, that

[53:04] doesn't mean that we spent those funds. It just shows

[53:07] that we have that obligation for the future. Yes, Chris

[53:13] Rodney, when, when do you unencumber? How long do

[53:18] you keep that encumbered number on a facility like

[53:20] say you've finished Doris Hancock, when do you then

[53:26] close that out and start your new clean? Well, essentially

[53:29] in a construction contract, we're going to encumber

[53:31] the full amount of that contract. So once we pay that

[53:34] final pay up, that amount should have already been

[53:37] expensed the majority of it and been unencumbered

[53:40] as we go along and make those payments. However, the

[53:43] last piece of that wouldn't occur until we actually

[53:45] close that payment out. And if obviously if we can

[53:49] get some kind of surprise where we have some savings

[53:51] in the contract or whatever, we will then realize

[53:54] those savings, uh, back to the fund as well. OK, so

[53:58] you can reallocate once you've done that unencumbered

[54:01] component. And that's there in case when you do your

[54:04] final, you've done a walkthrough and then you went

[54:06] oh, they didn't have, um, sinks on the 2nd floor at

[54:10] the high school on, yeah, anyway, and then you can

[54:14] use that that encumbered amount to fix that problem

[54:18] Well, actually it should already be encumbered for

[54:21] the problems that exist because we have to do a punch

[54:23] list and that punch list is to go out and say, please

[54:26] take care of these items that we've found that needs

[54:28] to be taken care of. Uh, essentially, when they have

[54:32] completed all those tasks and everybody's satisfied

[54:34] with the work they have, then that's when we're gonna

[54:36] sign off on the final pay up and make the final payment

[54:38] And the principals weigh in on the punch list too

[54:40] if I recall correctly. And then if it was a design

[54:45] flaw, then you notify staff internally that they screwed

[54:48] up as the architects and didn't have sinks for the

[54:50] janitor to be able to do whatever they do or something

[54:54] along those lines. Is that correct? Yeah, our principals

[54:57] contribute to that punch list, but rightfully so that

[55:00] actually resides with the architect and engineer, but

[55:03] we seek that input from the principal for sure. Because

[55:06] sometimes they know programming wise what triggers

[55:09] things versus what an architect or engineer might

[55:12] even be looking for thank you. Thank you. Do we have

[55:15] any other? Yes, Mr. Jones. How long do we hold retention

[55:22] Essentially we keep the retention until we get to

[55:25] that last, get to the last pay up, then we release

[55:29] the last bit of retention and take care of those as

[55:31] well at the same time. So do we hold it for, say for

[55:36] instance on the punch list we will, we will get the

[55:38] retention from the beginning of the contract based

[55:40] upon what the contract value is and then set it aside

[55:43] OK, thank you. Thank you, Walter. Do I have any comments

[55:48] from or questions from online? Um, I, the, um, I have

[55:54] no questions on, on this document in particular, um

[55:59] and if you want I can put it under a future agenda

[56:01] item, but I was hoping that maybe we could get that

[56:03] more expanded, um, school by school, uh, capital summary

[56:07] report, um, for next meeting. It's been. A while, so

[56:12] it'll be nice to overlook that school by school document

[56:16] again. Um, all right, that concludes 2.05. We can

[56:22] move on to 2.06. This is regulation 7112 review. This

[56:27] is for possible action. So, um, I know there's a lot

[56:31] of numbers. I even when I was trying to describe all

[56:34] this to everyone, I, it can get lost in the numbers

[56:37] but let, uh, um, Brandon, would you like to give a

[56:40] summary of how we've gotten to this point so far, or

[56:42] would you like me to start that off? Madam Chair, you

[56:46] can start. I shouldn't have made that an either or

[56:50] I should have just gone to you. I'll learn my lesson

[56:52] for the for the future. So as we are reviewing our

[56:56] regulations and policies that affect bond Oversight

[56:58] Committee, um, several years back, uh, regulation

[57:01] 7112, uh, came to our attention. I believe this was

[57:04] even back when Mr. Goins was our chair, so this is

[57:08] going back quite some time. Uh, through different

[57:10] chairs and through different facility heads, um, at

[57:13] the time Ms. Williams and I were a part of a, of a

[57:16] group that, that worked to get some of this language

[57:20] changed then. This may have been, was it last year

[57:24] or 2 years ago that we brought this up? You brought

[57:26] this up initially to the board of, uh, bond oversight

[57:30] committee to review. Now this is going into the final

[57:34] review process where it can then move into where it

[57:39] becomes recommended to the board of school trustees

[57:42] Uh, so, uh, right, and so our action item today is

[57:45] to make a recommendation as to going along that process

[57:49] I just wanna make sure that I understand what you're

[57:51] asking this bond committee to do. Yes, uh, I'll try

[57:56] to synthesize a little bit of that of what I, I need

[57:59] to cover with this. So, um, district regulation and

[58:01] policies are put forward in align with the governance

[58:04] policies of how those are brought forward. It's basically

[58:07] a compact between the superintendent and her staff

[58:09] and the board. Um, so you guys are recommending a

[58:11] body to the board of school trustees in that regard

[58:14] And so yes, we started down this path in 2022, some

[58:17] workshopping, uh, we brought this forward for discussion

[58:21] and it actually dates back to June of 2024. Um, we're

[58:27] very much in alignment with most of the markings you

[58:29] see here are reflective of some of the feedback we

[58:32] heard from both with the workshopping. This group

[58:35] did as well as, um, ahead of that. Um, so really today

[58:39] this has been workshopped with you guys in June of

[58:41] 2024. Our executive leadership team of the district

[58:45] has reviewed and approved these recommendations and

[58:48] so with your guys' um, Nod to this today. We'll then

[58:53] include that recommendation as a part of what we recommend

[58:56] on behalf of district staff to the board, um, at a

[58:58] forthcoming, uh, school board of trustees meeting

[59:02] Uh, the process for this is it gets read as a notice

[59:04] of intent at one meeting, no less than 30 days after

[59:07] that, it goes for final action, which is on a consent

[59:10] agenda item. So, um, tentatively, I believe the second

[59:14] meeting in May, we anticipate this being a notice

[59:18] of intent where I will read very consistent with what

[59:21] I share with you here today, and then barring any

[59:24] um, crazy action not taken on the item, and that's

[59:29] absolutely a possibility, but, um, barring approval

[59:31] there, we would then solicit this the tail end of

[59:34] June, if not the July meeting for final action as

[59:39] a consent agenda item. So. Uh, as we get into the

[59:43] regulation, um, none of this should really be a surprise

[59:47] A lot of it is just cleaning up common practices we

[59:50] already do and are already prioritizing workarounds

[59:54] so it's really just making, um, our current practices

[59:57] in align with the regulations. So, um, item one, simply

[1:00:02] clarifying the district's capital master plan and

[1:00:04] really distinguishing the CIP. Separate and apart

[1:00:08] from the capital or the facility master plan, there

[1:00:11] are two different mechanisms of how we track work

[1:00:14] Um, the second paragraph down, we include the age

[1:00:17] of the facility as a decision point, whether to renovate

[1:00:20] or replace. Uh, we roll down to Roman numeral number

[1:00:23] 2, item A. Uh, the facility's division hasn't existed

[1:00:28] since, I don't know, I think 2019, 2018, I think, last

[1:00:32] um, so updating the title of the unit. Um, then adding

[1:00:37] I know we've commonly spoken about the we conduct

[1:00:40] facility assessments on 20% of our inventory every

[1:00:45] year. That way over 5 years' time, all of our facilities

[1:00:48] are assessed, and so that's just codifying a lot of

[1:00:51] that practice that we're already doing, given current

[1:00:53] staffing allocation. Uh, if we turn to page 2. It

[1:00:59] really speaks again to the 50 year lifespan we anticipate

[1:01:02] our buildings to have. So we don't want to necessarily

[1:01:07] replace our buildings if they're not 50 years or older

[1:01:10] because we didn't get the useful life out of them

[1:01:12] If they're less than 50 years old and close to that

[1:01:15] 0.6, well, that means they're potentially a great

[1:01:17] candidate for renovation or extensive repairs. Um

[1:01:22] we also then in item 2 here on page 24, we talk about

[1:01:26] the program analysis shall consider facility age, percent

[1:01:29] of students enrolled versus program capacity, and

[1:01:32] whether portable classrooms are required to accommodate

[1:01:35] the current educational specifications. So it's kind

[1:01:37] of adding that anecdotal or qualitative side to how

[1:01:41] it is we prioritize capital dollars. More often than

[1:01:44] not we hear, how can you replace this when you've

[1:01:46] got this other thing over here with all these portables

[1:01:48] right? And so it speaks exactly to that, how do we

[1:01:50] get seats in brick and mortar spaces ahead of maybe

[1:01:54] other priorities. We then go to page 3, this is item

[1:02:02] C, number 1, item A, and you'll see this twice actually

[1:02:08] um, the weight of critical systems that have the potential

[1:02:12] to interrupt instruction are prioritized and weighed

[1:02:15] heavier, because we don't want to interrupt that daily

[1:02:18] instruction, so it gives a greater weight to vital

[1:02:21] systems such as the HVAC system, the roofing system

[1:02:24] plumbing systems, electrical systems. And exterior

[1:02:27] envelope. So those are our high priority areas where

[1:02:30] if those one of those four things are the issue, they

[1:02:34] they weigh into the priority a bit differently. Uh

[1:02:41] again, you see the anecdotal area in item C1D, speaking

[1:02:46] to the amount of portable classrooms, percentage of

[1:02:50] students enrolled versus program capacity, how, how

[1:02:53] utilizes the building as well as the facility age

[1:02:57] Item E, we also gave the nod to many of our students

[1:03:00] don't have the luxury of having their parents be their

[1:03:03] primary careers or uh caretakers, so acknowledging

[1:03:06] guardians within it was an important acknowledgement

[1:03:09] from some of our school personnel. Uh, last but not

[1:03:13] least, um, item, I believe this was E, I'm on page

[1:03:19] 4. It's in continuation, um, but the region superintendent's

[1:03:22] input, um, they may bring items forward to the bond

[1:03:26] Oversight Committee and school board of trustees, and

[1:03:28] oftentimes already they're just working directly with

[1:03:31] me as region leaders, um, with our facilities team

[1:03:35] about any public community input or exemptions that

[1:03:37] they're seeking. Um, so we're just codifying what

[1:03:40] that current process is as well. So I'll stop there

[1:03:43] for any questions, but yes, we are seeking recommendation

[1:03:46] to present this to the board of school trustees at

[1:03:48] their next scheduled meeting. Thank you, Mr. McLaughlin

[1:03:51] Um, Chris, thank you, very helpful because I wasn't

[1:03:55] around on in 24. So on page, um, around section. I'm

[1:04:01] sorry, Section 2A, the facilities over 40 years of

[1:04:05] age, how does, can you give me an example of how that

[1:04:09] works? You, how do you get to 20%? Do you look at

[1:04:14] all, all the buildings on a campus? Do you look at

[1:04:17] some of the buildings on the campus? Some may be older

[1:04:19] than others? How, how does that 20% work? No, that's

[1:04:23] a good question. Uh, it's 20% of our active sites

[1:04:26] We have 442 sites, I believe. Um, so we'll go to 20%

[1:04:31] of those throughout the year and we assess the entirety

[1:04:33] of that facility, but we only do that every 5 years

[1:04:36] OK, so it's the total site or the site in total is

[1:04:40] is considered because sometimes you can have older

[1:04:42] buildings and younger buildings on the same site. That

[1:04:45] doesn't figure in yet. On this component. It does

[1:04:48] and it speaks to, I believe the, the area that's in

[1:04:52] C, but that's already a preexisting process and the

[1:04:54] example on page 4, there is Boulder City High School

[1:04:57] where you've got Western High School being correct

[1:05:01] here, um. Yeah, the, the FCIs are very across all

[1:05:05] those buildings, and I'd venture to guess many of

[1:05:07] those FCIs are actually out of date because it's just

[1:05:09] an example purpose, but that it's, it's illustrate

[1:05:12] exactly that you've got 0.5, you've got 0.05, and

[1:05:15] that's the items that then get presented to the BOC

[1:05:18] here when you have those sorts of inconsistencies

[1:05:21] OK. And then the all facilities over 40 years old

[1:05:25] I think Wendell Williams and I. I added that language

[1:05:28] to my bond rollover back in the day so that we were

[1:05:30] looking at older facilities and not just keeping up

[1:05:33] with growth where they got the newer facilities at

[1:05:36] the expense of the older areas. So that's still there

[1:05:39] Um, can you give us an example of historical significance

[1:05:42] My only understanding is Good Springs is the only

[1:05:45] one with any kind of a historical designation, but

[1:05:47] maybe Boulder City is. I don't know. Do we have a

[1:05:50] list of. Anybody that fits that sentence, to my knowledge

[1:05:55] there's only two campuses that have historical designations

[1:05:58] so it's Good Springs, as well as 2 or 3 buildings

[1:06:01] rather on Las Vegas Academy's campus. Academy, yeah

[1:06:04] the, the main hall, the existing library, and Frasier

[1:06:08] are all on. Either national or state designation, OK

[1:06:11] and so the remodel or that's or the replacement portion

[1:06:15] of LVA, for example, that's happening right now, you

[1:06:18] do keep the historical significance of the front of

[1:06:20] the building and, and the art deco and all that part

[1:06:23] of it, right? Brandon McLaughlinn? Yes, we have actually

[1:06:26] given multiple presentations to the Las Vegas Historical

[1:06:29] Preservation Society and continue to meet with Bob

[1:06:31] Stallhl and Senator Bryant. Because yes, we are now

[1:06:35] entering phase 2B design, which is the historic renovation

[1:06:39] of Main, Frasier and the library. So that's right

[1:06:42] at the forefront of where we're. OK, good. Um, second

[1:06:46] portion is. Question on page 2, sub 2 program analysis

[1:06:56] The way it reads, it's as if every campus has portables

[1:06:59] I'm going to suggest there and. Um, on in CD to add

[1:07:06] the term, if any, because it just, if you're looking

[1:07:09] longer term for some of this, you might want to. Because

[1:07:13] some people reading it would assume, oh, every school

[1:07:15] has portables, and that's not necessarily true. Just

[1:07:19] for thought. And then in C1A, do we consider solar

[1:07:23] under electricity? Is that considered a component

[1:07:29] I mean, yes, solar generates electricity. I don't

[1:07:31] wanna underestimate that, but the statement of this

[1:07:35] was more intended for what has the potential to close

[1:07:38] the school. And so in my mind, solar, if a solar panels

[1:07:41] out, that doesn't, that's not gonna affect the operation

[1:07:44] OK, I see what you're at. And then let's see. And

[1:07:47] then in C, annual operating costs by changing from

[1:07:50] will to May, then what happens? What do you mean? Well

[1:07:58] it says expresses a cost per square foot and will

[1:08:01] be used to adjust priority. If you adopt this change

[1:08:04] may be used to adjust the priority. And if it, what

[1:08:09] happens if it isn't used to adjust the priority. I

[1:08:15] don't, I'm trying to understand why you're going from

[1:08:18] strict to unstrict and then what the impact of that

[1:08:20] is. I think this is, and, and I'd have to go back

[1:08:23] on, uh, uh, when this recommendation was brought forward

[1:08:27] which group of ours, uh, brought it forward. I wanna

[1:08:29] say this has been here for quite a while and. Um, more

[1:08:33] often than not, I'd say this enters the conversation

[1:08:36] but it doesn't necessarily drive the prioritization

[1:08:39] A lot of these other pieces will, and so instead of

[1:08:42] violating one of our regulations, it's just one component

[1:08:44] of many. It just gives you a little more flexibility

[1:08:47] OK, that, that makes sense. And I think those are

[1:08:50] my questions. Thank you. Thank you. If I can just

[1:08:54] to capture what it is your recommendation was, so

[1:08:56] on that this examination shock consider statement

[1:08:59] right? You're saying and portable classrooms, comma

[1:09:02] if any, comma, required, and the same thing in CD

[1:09:06] if you adopt that language. Thank you. Thank you, Ms

[1:09:10] Williams. Thank you, madam. Um. Couple of things. One

[1:09:16] first off, I wanna just say express my excitement

[1:09:19] about seeing the portable classrooms specifically identified

[1:09:23] in, in this policy. So thank you for that. Um, in

[1:09:28] section one, overall, I, I guess what I'm, what I'm

[1:09:33] I'm, I'm, Missing here would like to, to maybe, um

[1:09:41] maybe I'm just, Over sensitive and maybe maybe I shouldn't

[1:09:45] be concerned but as you know many of our schools are

[1:09:49] very different than each other and have facilities

[1:09:54] I know we travel, uh, the work that we do with the

[1:09:57] district, um, with our out outside organization, we

[1:10:01] we do a lot of events as you know uh we that's our

[1:10:05] purpose is to travel from school to school as part

[1:10:08] of that leadership role. Um, and so these kids actually

[1:10:12] see all the different schools and how theirs looks

[1:10:16] different than those, and many have expressed, oh

[1:10:20] I wanna go to this school. This is a nice school. My

[1:10:22] school doesn't have, but I don't see that addressed

[1:10:24] here in this opening kind of statement here. Um, around

[1:10:30] that at all, um, I know we have, of course our priority

[1:10:34] is to make sure that kids are educated in a safe place

[1:10:37] and, and have the necessary needs they have to learn

[1:10:40] but how do, how are we going to address an issue of

[1:10:45] of some schools, especially when they're older versus

[1:10:48] those newer schools that have more. More options, um

[1:10:56] more access to, uh, opportunities that maybe some

[1:11:00] of the other kids may not have at their school because

[1:11:03] of the age of that, that, that building structure

[1:11:07] So I guess I'm talking about compa compare comparing

[1:11:11] a school to another. How does that weigh in at all

[1:11:15] and does it and should it. Um, you know, being able

[1:11:19] to provide, for example, I remember I don't want to

[1:11:22] call out schools because I don't, I don't, it's not

[1:11:24] necessary, but I remember one school, uh, we went

[1:11:27] to and the kids noticed that they had, um, Um, lounge

[1:11:32] areas for their students to go with, with the big

[1:11:36] pillows and kind of a sit in more like around mental

[1:11:40] health. They wanted to have something like that at

[1:11:43] their school. They didn't have the space for it or

[1:11:45] uh, to do something like that. So just using that

[1:11:48] as an example. So for clarification before you jump

[1:11:53] there, are you talking more programming that goes

[1:11:57] on to a school versus a facility component? I'm talking

[1:12:00] about a facility component. They can't offer those

[1:12:03] kinds of opportunities or access to those kind of

[1:12:07] opportunities because there's building. Won't allow

[1:12:09] for that so it's a, it's a space issue but, and, and

[1:12:12] so I, I'm just wondering how are we going to address

[1:12:15] that, especially if we wanna create all these schools

[1:12:17] of destination or my school of choice is my neighborhood

[1:12:21] school if we're not looking at those kind of things

[1:12:24] as well. I'll, I'll say if I can brand it, it's, it's

[1:12:30] Keeping Up with the Joneses, Walter excluded, um, but

[1:12:34] that's the, the thing we very often hear. I will point

[1:12:38] to where we customarily rely upon for that is item

[1:12:45] Uh, 2 B. Uh, 2, where it talks about program analysis

[1:12:52] and so where, when we, when we do facility improvements

[1:12:56] there's 2, call them trains. There's condition-based

[1:13:00] improvements, and there's adequacy-based improvements

[1:13:02] Condition is the condition of these systems and components

[1:13:05] need to be replaced. The adequacy means we don't have

[1:13:10] all the bells and whistles of a common, um, say more

[1:13:13] modern prototype. And so right now, a lot of our emphasis

[1:13:17] has continued to be condition-based. We want all of

[1:13:20] our schools to just be at a baseline, but. If we were

[1:13:22] afforded the luxury of either increased bond dollars

[1:13:25] or a breather where we don't have HVACs down, we would

[1:13:28] then probably transition to a lot more adequacy-based

[1:13:30] improvements, but there's a balance between the two

[1:13:33] You can't just strictly say, oh, that's that school's

[1:13:35] running fine. It doesn't need all the bells and whistles

[1:13:38] and so, um, that's something we, as we prioritize

[1:13:41] dollars need to be just conscientious of. Is this

[1:13:43] an improvement that's based upon adequacy or based

[1:13:46] upon conditions, and both can be in a healthy relationship

[1:13:49] with one another. I'd like to really see that kind

[1:13:52] of more and maybe that's where we use that word may

[1:13:58] You know, but be able to at least address that in

[1:14:00] here in our policy because when we look at the re

[1:14:04] revisions of this policy, if you look at that, you

[1:14:07] see how long it's been since we've even addressed

[1:14:09] this policy and so it might be nice to incorporate

[1:14:14] a sentence or something related to that, um, so that

[1:14:18] in those instances then we can add that into the discussion

[1:14:23] And weigh that into our decision making on what we're

[1:14:27] going to do at that school. So, like I said, paragraph

[1:14:30] or was it Section 2B2, paragraph 2 within that 2B2

[1:14:36] Where, where am I? Page 2, it's about 2/3 of the way

[1:14:39] down. Yeah, where it says program analysis. Yep. So

[1:14:42] then the second paragraph down it says, second paragraph

[1:14:45] adequacy. OK, I got you. I got measured as the cost

[1:14:48] to build or upgrade space. And I'll underline to accommodate

[1:14:52] current curriculum standards, and it says curriculum

[1:14:56] I don't love that word choice, so maybe in hindsight

[1:14:58] that would have been better to change, but this is

[1:15:01] where we'd say in alignment with current educational

[1:15:04] specifications. So, uh, can we change that maybe instead

[1:15:07] of curriculum to program standards? This is your guys'

[1:15:12] recommendation if that's what you'd like to see. I

[1:15:14] mean, at least it gives us a little more, um, freedom

[1:15:18] to curriculum is more instructional, whereas program

[1:15:22] could, could include facilities for consistency of

[1:15:26] term. Would you guys adopt saying educational specifications

[1:15:29] because that's, we try to layer into that in other

[1:15:32] instances here as well. Educational specifications

[1:15:35] ed specs. That's a very common, uh. Um, term used

[1:15:39] throughout the architectural and design planning industry

[1:15:43] Well, this might actually, I mean, because when we

[1:15:48] one of the other ones that we're gonna get to is that

[1:15:50] 7121. I'm wondering if, if that's where we really

[1:15:54] can look at maybe some of that additional language

[1:15:58] I had a lot of questions on that one too if we're

[1:16:00] just limiting it to outdoor space because I have hot

[1:16:03] kitchens for example on that one. But if I'm well

[1:16:06] If I'm understanding uh because I wanna try and get

[1:16:09] to one I wanna try and get to uh whether or not we

[1:16:11] can feel comfortable making a recommendation because

[1:16:13] as you and I've talked about we've we've been in this

[1:16:16] one for quite some time so if the feeling that program

[1:16:21] analysis and program adequacy are not clear enough

[1:16:25] terms to sort of capture that or be a mechanism for

[1:16:29] kind of capturing that that's your, that's your feeling

[1:16:32] is that the languages it's written. Doesn't give a

[1:16:36] strong enough weight or consideration to it. I'm gonna

[1:16:43] point out language wise, if you look above, you use

[1:16:46] the term current educational specs, so it makes sense

[1:16:50] to delete curriculum standards and insert that language

[1:16:53] if that's recommended. I'm not sure if you need the

[1:16:56] word current in either place because that's kind of

[1:17:00] movable depending on. The site, the principal, the

[1:17:05] SOT, what they offer as educational specs on a particular

[1:17:09] campus. So that's just food for thought, but if you're

[1:17:12] going to mirror that language, then I would say that

[1:17:14] use the ed specs versus the curriculum. I will push

[1:17:18] back on that though. There is a separate regulation

[1:17:20] that we'll get to eventually, I'm sure, um, regarding

[1:17:23] that the district shall adopt educational specifications

[1:17:25] to ensure a degree of predictability and continuity

[1:17:28] across campuses. So, so then you probably wanna keep

[1:17:30] current continuity. That's a good one. Current specs

[1:17:33] then I'd like that one too, continuity. And then my

[1:17:36] other, so on that one, so we can go back to that one

[1:17:39] but there were a couple of other, um, that I just

[1:17:42] wanted to get to real quick, uh, was, uh. Um, B, um

[1:17:47] Roman numeral 2, uh, B2, uh, program analysis which

[1:17:53] we were talking about, um, where you're adding the

[1:17:57] language, the program analysis may consider facility

[1:18:00] age. I'd like to see that change to analysis will

[1:18:04] consider facility age percent of student enrolled

[1:18:06] versus program capacity portable classrooms required

[1:18:10] to accommodate the current educational specifications

[1:18:13] My other question for you on this, in particular when

[1:18:16] it comes to portable classrooms, um, how are we. In

[1:18:23] in these considerations, are you giving it weight

[1:18:26] Are each going to be weighted and, and, and, and if

[1:18:29] so, is that going to be based on percentage of portables

[1:18:34] versus building classrooms, um, or number? I mean

[1:18:39] how are we determining, uh, that inadequacy? It's

[1:18:45] what you guys recommend if you guys want it to be

[1:18:48] a percentage based or weighted, what do we wanna capture

[1:18:52] it as? I just, I've just, right, right now when, yeah

[1:18:58] when we look at say just the Southwest High School

[1:19:00] area, for example, right, we know that Desert Oasis

[1:19:03] has double digit portables. We know Sierra Vista has

[1:19:05] double digit portables that weighs into it. We kind

[1:19:09] of anecdotally and quantitatively know that there's

[1:19:12] a lot of portables there, so it, it weighs into it

[1:19:15] It doesn't have increased weight, though it speaks

[1:19:17] to the story of why that schools are overcrowded, but

[1:19:20] seeing relief in, in the coming years. So I don't

[1:19:24] know, to, to Ms. Junkuliani's question earlier, Will

[1:19:27] versus May, I think it allows some flexibility is

[1:19:30] would be my only emphasis on here. Yeah, I like Will

[1:19:36] OK, and you're using this, you're using says at this

[1:19:39] CD, so you might want to mirror the will in this section

[1:19:44] as long as you have it in the C area. Yeah, I just

[1:19:47] don't want it to be left out that that we may do it

[1:19:50] or we may not. You know, I, I just, we will, we will

[1:19:54] take this into consideration, and we're gonna, and

[1:19:58] we will add it to our, uh, analysis. Instead of May

[1:20:04] And I, I feel very strongly about that one only because

[1:20:07] of, um, the struggles we've had with, um, with portables

[1:20:10] We've done better. I give you that, but we still um

[1:20:16] have a have issues with that, um, and then, um, when

[1:20:20] it comes to prioritization, um, one A, um, you, you

[1:20:26] have in here that you're weighing the replacement

[1:20:29] value of each of the facilities blah blah blah blah

[1:20:31] blah, um, I didn't see, um, in here and I'm and and

[1:20:36] this could be maybe I'm just being a little, um. Overly

[1:20:40] cautious, um, but I didn't see portables in there

[1:20:43] at all, uh, as far as our will are portables included

[1:20:48] so if a portable. Electricity went out or the heat

[1:20:52] or the air conditioning went out or the heating went

[1:20:55] out or whatever, there was a problem with that portable

[1:20:57] would that then be included in this? Is that part

[1:21:01] of this prioritization, even if it's a portable classroom

[1:21:05] or does this only apply to building classrooms? It

[1:21:08] doesn't preclude it and it doesn't, to your point

[1:21:11] specifically include it, but it's not excluded. So

[1:21:13] it's anything that can threaten instruction, which

[1:21:16] tend to be those four core areas. OK. OK, um, All

[1:21:24] right, I'll leave that alone because that can get

[1:21:26] very complicated. Um, and then lastly, again, on, I

[1:21:30] think you brought that up, Chris, I think, I'm not

[1:21:33] sure, on 1, D, where we have this examination, we'll

[1:21:38] consider facility H, blah, blah, blah. But then it

[1:21:40] conflicts. So 50 years, um. Yeah, so we need to be

[1:21:48] consistent. you're talking about, go back to here

[1:21:51] So. Yeah, with the 40 years. So they're using 50. Hmm

[1:21:55] So, I don't know, I forgot to ask about, Is that what

[1:21:59] you're asking? The inconsistency of the 40 years and

[1:22:01] the 50 years. I think it's that when you're talking

[1:22:08] about the age of the the the screening all facilities

[1:22:14] over 40 years that's a screening process is how I

[1:22:19] read that and then. The FCI of greater 0.6 will support

[1:22:25] a replacement recommendation if the facility is 50

[1:22:28] years or older. So one is a recommendation process

[1:22:32] and one is a screening process is my understanding

[1:22:35] But Brandon, do you read that differently? No, that's

[1:22:38] consistent. So that's how we want to keep so you took

[1:22:43] it between 40 and 60 and you landed on 50. Well, no

[1:22:47] 50 years is our projected lifespan, but to Ms. Blackton

[1:22:50] Taylor's point, yes, 40 years is when we start to

[1:22:52] see those inconsistencies, so it becomes a screening

[1:22:55] mechanism because it usually doesn't. Oh, I see. OK

[1:22:57] Usually doesn't point to the whole story. OK. OK. And

[1:22:59] then we move up to the 50 because that's what we're

[1:23:02] making, actually making these, those changes. Right

[1:23:04] OK, I got you. OK. Um, I think that was, 00, and then

[1:23:10] my last question on the last page, we're, we're looking

[1:23:13] at this, uh, map of Bonnanza. Um, does this, does

[1:23:17] uh, uh, I'm Bonanza too at Western, does Western have

[1:23:21] any portables on their campus? Uh, I would have to

[1:23:26] confirm that for you. They, they may, and I don't

[1:23:29] want to mislead you, but so, so my question is then

[1:23:32] then in this map, if there were portables, we're not

[1:23:34] seeing it on this map. When I worked at Western in

[1:23:37] 2017, they had portables. I'm just curious because

[1:23:43] if we're looking at maps to make decisions and we're

[1:23:45] not showing portables, then it kind of skews. You're

[1:23:50] saying you would like an example like that actually

[1:23:53] shows portables as well because that's part of the

[1:23:56] instructional facility. I see what you're saying. And

[1:24:00] and and then it does raise the issue because now you're

[1:24:03] seeing like for example some of the schools you named

[1:24:05] where we see portable, portable port it's like a portable

[1:24:08] Well this is, I, but I believe this example is just

[1:24:11] showing how an FCI comes about portables, not into

[1:24:17] the FCI. It drives our capacity analysis but not our

[1:24:21] FCIs because that's what we came up against when we

[1:24:24] were trying to have this conversation about portables

[1:24:26] in the past was that because portables are not permanent

[1:24:29] facilities, they don't fall under the FCI calculations

[1:24:35] Which is why we've looked to add portables as a part

[1:24:38] of the consideration elsewhere because we couldn't

[1:24:42] do it as a part of the FCI. Where is there a way that

[1:24:47] we can show our portables still when we're looking

[1:24:51] at you tell me that how, how do you want to capture

[1:24:53] it? I mean, I, I would like to be able to see portables

[1:24:56] because then I could wouldn't have to ask that question

[1:24:58] I can look at a map and I can say, oh, we've got a

[1:25:01] portable park. I venture to guess the FCI on nearly

[1:25:05] all of our portables would be one. Because they're

[1:25:09] pretty, I say relatively inexpensive and to repair

[1:25:13] them is pretty extensive and you, you know, as much

[1:25:15] as anybody, they are, are pretty old assets usually

[1:25:19] uh, we've bought a couple in the last couple of years

[1:25:22] but by and large it wouldn't really indicate anything

[1:25:25] different to us than what we currently already know

[1:25:27] I think I'm happy to capture however you wanna see

[1:25:29] it. I think for me in terms of the sample of what's

[1:25:32] in an FCI, this is an adequate picture of that. I

[1:25:36] think what's more important is, as we see reporting

[1:25:39] data based on this, that we continue to capture portables'

[1:25:44] information. So this isn't a sample of what sort of

[1:25:49] Reporting we would be getting on these topics in my

[1:25:53] opinion this is just an illustration as a part of

[1:25:56] this regulation that gives an example of how FCI works

[1:26:01] in a very, very basic way, but I, to me what reports

[1:26:07] and what oversight gets generated because of this

[1:26:10] policy is, is more valuable. I'm not sure how much

[1:26:16] we'll be referencing this as a, as a just a to me

[1:26:20] I see this as a as a a sample page that's on a that

[1:26:25] might be on a on a quiz or something, but this is

[1:26:27] this is static information. These are not incorrect

[1:26:30] FCI numbers. This is just a, just a sample. OK, well

[1:26:35] in fairness, and, and then I'm done with my questions

[1:26:38] but in fairness, I still would prefer to be able to

[1:26:40] see that, um, on there, but. Uh, with maybe a footnote

[1:26:44] or something that those are portables and we know

[1:26:47] that it's not part of the FCI, but I would prefer

[1:26:50] that's just my opinion. Others have their own opinion

[1:26:52] but I wanna express mine. I think an accommodation

[1:26:55] could be made because this is just a sample that you

[1:26:57] put in an asterisk and say portable is not included

[1:27:00] or not, not pictured. Then that way it doesn't assume

[1:27:03] one way or another. Our portables are included in

[1:27:09] the and that portables are included in the analysis

[1:27:13] Thank you. OK, um. And then, well, not yet. Um, do

[1:27:19] we have anybody online that would like to discuss

[1:27:22] this? Anybody else on the dais, I'd, I'd prefer this

[1:27:28] is an action item, so I'd like to know if there's

[1:27:30] any public comment on this. There's not. OK, I'm I'm

[1:27:37] hesitant because we, I know we're still at quorum

[1:27:39] even with Mr. Jones having stepped out, um, but I'd

[1:27:43] like to hesitate before, um, actually making a motion

[1:27:47] on this. Just take an extra moment. I mean, I will

[1:27:56] So I just to be clear in terms of these suggestions

[1:28:01] that were made today, Mr. McLaughlin, that. Your team

[1:28:07] could potentially consider some of this language in

[1:28:10] terms of updating it, or is there no intent to alter

[1:28:13] any of this language at this point because of where

[1:28:15] this process is, and this was more clarification. Um

[1:28:20] I'll have to work with the superintendent's office

[1:28:22] on that because I'll, I'll have to work on the superintendent's

[1:28:25] office on that because these are again staff recommendations

[1:28:28] on behalf of the superintendent, and these are good

[1:28:31] inputs to, to receive, but. Um, very much I'll have

[1:28:35] to see if it's consistent with what we as a district

[1:28:37] are, are recommending on, and we're grateful for you

[1:28:39] guys' participation, but I don't want it to be misportrayed

[1:28:42] that you guys are representing the staff recommendation

[1:28:45] though we hope it's all consistent. So I think in

[1:28:48] in terms of that in our expectation as a bond oversight

[1:28:51] committee, I wanna be clear that like we, we're able

[1:28:54] oh great, Mr. Jones, um, that we are able. Able to

[1:28:57] make those concerns known, make those suggestions

[1:29:00] known, but we will be voting on whether or not to

[1:29:02] approve this language sort of as is with consideration

[1:29:06] of those of those potential changes. If those changes

[1:29:09] do not get made, I think then my understanding is

[1:29:14] that your position at this point would be to not recommend

[1:29:16] if, if it's, if those changes are not are. That's

[1:29:22] a good question. are absolutely integral to whether

[1:29:26] or not you make that recommendation for clarification

[1:29:28] the superintendent's office staff have recommendations

[1:29:32] It comes to us as an advisory board. We, in addition

[1:29:35] can make recommendations and then they. Choose, don't

[1:29:39] choose, change it completely, but I, I don't think

[1:29:43] it, it doesn't change anything. We're just clarifying

[1:29:46] language a little bit more closely in my opinion. Right

[1:29:49] I'm just saying that this does not have to come back

[1:29:53] to us to make another recommendation, yes, Yvette

[1:29:58] I don't think so. Um What I see before us is staff's

[1:30:06] recommendations, and we've entered into a conversation

[1:30:10] as to their recommendations to us that they, that

[1:30:12] they're recommending. Um, they could still make their

[1:30:15] own recommendations to the trustees as staff, the

[1:30:18] superintendent, but we as a committee can make our

[1:30:21] own recommendations. It could be that we totally agree

[1:30:24] 100% with everything just as written, and that could

[1:30:27] be our recommendation that we support this document

[1:30:30] as presented to us, or we can make our recommendation

[1:30:33] with our changes. And so there could be our still

[1:30:37] our recommendation could be made today if we're ready

[1:30:40] to do that as a committee. Uh, with our, um, with

[1:30:43] our recommendations, our changes, our tweaks, our

[1:30:47] tweaks, thank you, and staff still could present if

[1:30:52] they disagree, can still pre present their recommendations

[1:30:56] but the committee is still making their recommendation

[1:30:59] We're still a separate body from staff. Oh, I, I understand

[1:31:03] that this is, uh, that's what I was just trying to

[1:31:05] clarify. So we can move forward today on this. We're

[1:31:08] not, we don't have to hold anything up or move anything

[1:31:11] forward. We can, if we all agree or disagree or, um

[1:31:16] I think the committee, uh, I can try a motion and

[1:31:19] then we see if I get it or not. Well, that, yeah, that's

[1:31:22] where I think it gets a little bit confusing, but

[1:31:25] um, we have, we've already asked for public comment

[1:31:28] We do not have public comment, so we are ready. To

[1:31:30] entertain a motion if Chris, you wanna get us started

[1:31:33] on this, OK, I'll, I'll make an effort. Um, I would

[1:31:37] move that we approve the revision. I recommend the

[1:31:42] revisions, uh, additional revisions to regulation

[1:31:45] 7112. With the following. On page 2. B2 program analysis

[1:31:59] change the word may to will so it matches with CD

[1:32:10] The second part of the motion would include rewriting

[1:32:13] the paragraph program adequacy by deleting curriculum

[1:32:18] standards and inserting educational specifications

[1:32:23] That on page 3 of 4 C. D And I, and I missed that

[1:32:34] 2 B to insert the words if any. Uh, insert the words

[1:32:40] if anywhere after portable classrooms in D. And in

[1:32:47] item B2, I, I'm misstating that. So those two should

[1:32:51] be if any after the words portable classrooms. And

[1:32:58] then I might just make a suggestion that would be

[1:33:00] the changes that I, I saw that we've discussed. They're

[1:33:04] fairly motion. That's my motion. And included in that

[1:33:09] motion is that staff in their discussion with the

[1:33:13] superintendent's office explore whether or not regional

[1:33:18] superintendents could gather program offerings. So

[1:33:22] so that they know by school what is being offered

[1:33:25] in a particular school so that when somebody says

[1:33:27] oh, well, they got that over there and they got that

[1:33:29] over there, that could complement what's going on

[1:33:33] Because if, what I want to make sure is if we're recommending

[1:33:36] an upgrade to this, the school district is contemplating

[1:33:40] changing some from pre-K6 to pre-K8. You have program

[1:33:44] changes that can shift. Some of what's included in

[1:33:48] here, I want to make sure that we are complementary

[1:33:51] to what's there rather than excluding anything potentially

[1:33:55] down the road. OK. That motion then got a lot more

[1:33:59] unwieldy, Chris. OK, so let me just do the initial

[1:34:01] motion which is those 4 changes that I mentioned. So

[1:34:05] Chris's motion just to clarify so everyone knows what's

[1:34:08] on the, on the table is to approve recommendation

[1:34:12] to the board of school trustees. With the following

[1:34:16] suggestions that in 2, I want to restate this. So

[1:34:21] in 2 procedure B2 that in the program analysis, the

[1:34:29] program analysis will consider facility age, percent

[1:34:34] of students enrolled versus program capacity, and

[1:34:36] portable classrooms, if any, required to accommodate

[1:34:40] the current educational specifications in the paragraph

[1:34:43] below that to change. Curriculum standards to educational

[1:34:46] specifications in paragraph 1 sorry 1D that we add

[1:34:53] in if any to portable classrooms. Those are those

[1:34:59] yes, those that is the 4 changes, the four tweaks

[1:35:03] recommended as a part of that. Can I make a suggestion

[1:35:05] too? Uh, so Mr. Jones, you would like to amend Chris's

[1:35:10] Instead of um staff recommend uh recommend staff and

[1:35:14] other community members may contact the regional superintendent

[1:35:18] shouldn't that be the trustee instead of the regional

[1:35:20] superintendent? Um, so you're suggesting perhaps maybe

[1:35:27] an and or the region superintendent and or trustee

[1:35:31] I would say the trustee. That would be my suggestion

[1:35:37] I would rather add than what than replace um but Chris

[1:35:42] do you accept that alteration sure you can do and

[1:35:45] or trustee and then ok in section E. So that is our

[1:35:50] 55 changes. I think the trustee might want to weigh

[1:35:55] in. I'd like to weigh in on that really quickly. So

[1:35:58] this regulation is a district regulation. That's why

[1:36:02] it says staff. The trustees are, uh, well, the 7 of

[1:36:06] us are elected. Uh, the other 4 are appointed. We

[1:36:09] are already. Um, public servants, so in my opinion

[1:36:15] it doesn't need to be in a district policy. It's a

[1:36:19] given that our constituents can reach out anytime

[1:36:22] they want. Um, I don't know that I would add that

[1:36:24] to a district policy. Mr. Jones, just a recommendation

[1:36:27] on my part. How would you like to react to that? Well

[1:36:30] I was more because if you're talking about a regional

[1:36:32] superintendent, but I think about tiny to make a recommendation

[1:36:37] and getting access to them is, is quicker to get to

[1:36:40] the trustee than it would be to a regional superintendent

[1:36:43] Yeah, but we don't, so another thing to add to that

[1:36:46] is we only have one employee that employee. As a superintendent

[1:36:50] we don't, we don't have access to the regional as

[1:36:52] well, um, because that's not our employees, so we

[1:36:55] we don't go to them and tell them what to do or ask

[1:36:58] them this or that we go to the soup, so, um, that

[1:37:02] that is why it's the verbiage is in there like and

[1:37:05] this is, this is May, so I think, um, I have a comment

[1:37:10] from remember that we're in the middle of a motion

[1:37:13] so yes, can I have the comment from online please

[1:37:16] I don't know who it is. Nikia It was me and I actually

[1:37:24] like the and or option. I think if we are passing

[1:37:29] a motion, I'd rather have the option available now

[1:37:34] so that people kind of have the choice. So if the

[1:37:38] only employee is the superintendent. The trustees

[1:37:44] are able to access the superintendent more easily

[1:37:48] to have these discussions. So I would like to add

[1:37:53] the and or. Thank you, Ms. Jackson Hill. Yes, reminder

[1:37:59] that we're in the middle of a motion. Yes. OK, but

[1:38:04] I just wanna just say this, um, the trustees are going

[1:38:07] to be the bottom line, they're the ones that are gonna

[1:38:10] approve this policy. If the trustees don't wanna, don't

[1:38:13] want that, they'll just make that amendment if you

[1:38:15] guys wanna move forward with that, um, you know, with

[1:38:18] that and or, um, my opinion is, um, the trustees will

[1:38:22] get involved regardless on any issue. So I think if

[1:38:26] if community has an issue, they're gonna go to their

[1:38:29] trustee about this anyway. And the trustee will, will

[1:38:32] move forward with those discussions with the superintendent

[1:38:36] on it. And so I, I kind of agree with our, with, um

[1:38:39] with our, um, trustee board president on that issue

[1:38:47] Uh, sorry, let me think of my thought. Mr. Jones, would

[1:38:51] you like to still maintain this suggested alteration

[1:38:55] to the well, the reason why I reckon the reason why

[1:38:57] I say the trustee because. Most of the parents don't

[1:39:01] even know who the area superintendent is. I understand

[1:39:04] but that was the reason why I said the trustee. They

[1:39:06] know more about, they see more of a picture of a trustee

[1:39:09] at the school than they're gonna see an area superintendent

[1:39:11] and I understand President Stevens is concerned as

[1:39:13] well as what is echoed by Yvette, um, but I don't

[1:39:18] I, any of these recom these tweaks are just a part

[1:39:22] of a recommendation that we are making. To staff to

[1:39:26] change it. And again, this becomes not something that

[1:39:29] we are hoping that is planned to come back to us. This

[1:39:32] is our feedback back to the employees. So I think

[1:39:39] I, I have a suggestion. I don't think we even need

[1:39:41] the first sentence. I, I, I don't wanna get even more

[1:39:44] into, into the weeds of this. So I'd like to try and

[1:39:49] but it's preclusive. Why do I have to have permission

[1:39:52] and a regulation that I want to complain that a school

[1:39:55] should be replaced and I'm only limited to go to the

[1:39:58] the, uh, regional superintendent? That's what this

[1:40:01] says. So rather than create that, maybe you just start

[1:40:05] your sentence with the CIP working group we'll review

[1:40:08] the draft replacement program. If a parent or a family

[1:40:11] member or a guardian or a kid doesn't think that the

[1:40:14] CIP replacement is happening to their school, why

[1:40:18] are we putting it in a regulation which limits who

[1:40:22] they can talk to? That's a good point. So maybe we

[1:40:27] just take that sentence out and then just leave it

[1:40:29] with the CIP. Because it doesn't presume whether it's

[1:40:33] a complaint or a non-complaint if you take that sentence

[1:40:36] out. Does that make sense, Brandon, or not? I think

[1:40:38] the idea of having it there was that they it actually

[1:40:41] gave a permission structure for parents and community

[1:40:45] members to get involved because it is not assumed

[1:40:48] in this process that they are that they have a voice

[1:40:51] in that. As an option then to me I have every right

[1:40:55] to go to my trustee and complain about any damn thing

[1:40:57] I want to if they respond to me fine if not, then

[1:40:59] I'm gonna take them out next time. So, um, you know

[1:41:02] it's kind of like why are we precluding only if you're

[1:41:06] complaining about the replacement do you get to go

[1:41:08] to the superintendent regional superintendent. That

[1:41:12] to me begs the question, what is that and I think

[1:41:15] it's that matter of permission. Like you're giving

[1:41:18] you don't need permission. No, you don't need permission

[1:41:21] but I think we're in a situation where people don't

[1:41:24] necessarily assume that that is an option that they

[1:41:26] have. And that's why I said and or superintendent

[1:41:31] so that people know their options. Instead of trustee

[1:41:36] instead of trustee and oh sorry, the, the regional

[1:41:40] and trustee and or so that they know their options

[1:41:43] they can go to both, they can go to one. So let, OK

[1:41:48] let's get because I, I, I think we are getting really

[1:41:50] far into the weeds. I wanna make sure, Chris, what

[1:41:53] is your motion right now? Is it still those tweaks

[1:41:55] or you want to remove that sentence? I'm gonna suggest

[1:41:58] that we do the motion with my tweaks, with the 4 tweaks

[1:42:02] then we come back and deal with Walter's question

[1:42:04] So that we actually don't muddy the waters any further

[1:42:07] Let's maybe deal with this motion first. Um, OK, so

[1:42:10] at this point you are the 14, you are, as your motion

[1:42:14] you are rejecting Mr. Jones's, um, adjustment, and

[1:42:20] no, I'm for this motion. You are rejecting his, his

[1:42:24] he didn't have a second, so there's nothing to reject

[1:42:26] at this point. Oh yeah, you're second in mine. So

[1:42:29] no, I was asking if you were willing to mend your

[1:42:31] agenda, your motion. You are not willing to amend

[1:42:34] your motion. So the original motion that Chris has

[1:42:36] stands that you are still seconding that, that motion

[1:42:41] OK, so all in favor of making this recommendation

[1:42:44] to the board of school trustees with the 4 tweaks

[1:42:47] that we've already clarified. Please say aye, aye

[1:42:51] aye. Opposed Hearing none, the motion carries. Thank

[1:42:58] you. So now we will continue to start conversation

[1:43:01] with a 7112 and consider an additional conversation

[1:43:07] regarding the prioritization of needs. And I'm not

[1:43:12] sure that we actually need to make a motion on this

[1:43:15] as much as we consider it as a part of the conversation

[1:43:18] where we, where we speak to staff and say that we

[1:43:22] think that there can be room in this language to make

[1:43:26] it more one to consider whether or not. It is dictating

[1:43:32] a policy to the community and removing rights that

[1:43:35] they would have otherwise. And if it's not, if considered

[1:43:39] more of a suggestion that we consider expanding the

[1:43:42] language to whom they can make a request. I, I have

[1:43:44] a question, um, to our liaison, uh, Madam President

[1:43:48] would it make sense? Could, would you reference just

[1:43:50] in the discussion. To the other trustees that some

[1:43:54] discussion centered around letter E and that we suggested

[1:43:57] that they may contact their regional superintendent

[1:44:00] the superintendent, or their trustee, and then blah

[1:44:03] blah blah, and at least reference that for discussion

[1:44:06] versus us doing a motion at this point. So what I'm

[1:44:11] gonna, sorry. So what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna take

[1:44:15] take your recommendation, what you. Vote on as a committee

[1:44:19] to the board. So whatever you guys vote on as your

[1:44:23] recommendation, that's what we'll discuss. I did make

[1:44:25] some notes. Like, for example, I did put a note, I

[1:44:28] even put Chris G next to it because it, it was a decent

[1:44:31] point, and it makes me think like, how many regulations

[1:44:35] do we have where we specifically say. Community parents

[1:44:41] guardians, like if that's not a consistent theme, maybe

[1:44:45] it doesn't belong, but that's, that's a good discussion

[1:44:47] point. So like I am taking notes. I am listening, but

[1:44:51] at the end of the day the, the, the main point will

[1:44:53] be whatever you vote on as a committee as the recommendation

[1:44:57] I can't. What I don't want to do is get into individual

[1:45:02] um, discussion points with the board because that's

[1:45:07] not, yeah, you got it. So I think to, to that end

[1:45:12] there is potentially room to. Make a motion that if

[1:45:20] we agree as a body that we would like to expand the

[1:45:24] language of step 3. Section 1, subsection E to be

[1:45:33] that we're not dictating the language of that, but

[1:45:35] that we are urging greater consideration of, of that

[1:45:41] clause. I think that is where we might have room to

[1:45:45] To continue making a recommendation. I have somebody

[1:45:48] online. Is that Jessica? Yeah, it's me. I, I guess

[1:45:53] I just don't understand why we're hemming and hawing

[1:45:55] over all this um verbiage, um, because, because it's

[1:45:58] not like a lot of the verbiage that we've been. Looking

[1:46:01] at is um majorly impactful. Um, I, I feel like we're

[1:46:07] wasting a lot of time on this, and I, I, I don't know

[1:46:10] I'm, I'm just really confused. So maybe there's people

[1:46:13] out there in the community who are watching this who

[1:46:15] will be equally confused about why this even matters

[1:46:18] Um, not to be rude, I appreciate everybody who's putting

[1:46:21] in suggestions and things. I just don't understand

[1:46:24] why we're spending so much time on May and Wills and

[1:46:28] all this other stuff when in reality, I don't know

[1:46:32] I, I, I feel like maybe we're focusing on the wrong

[1:46:34] thing right now. I understand your point, um, Miss

[1:46:36] Ellen, and I thank you for bringing it up. I think

[1:46:39] for me, and this is my perspective, and, and maybe

[1:46:41] this will help, is that when we come to the language

[1:46:44] of policy and regulation, one that is one of the major

[1:46:47] areas of purview for the bond oversight committee

[1:46:50] so in terms of. Examining the process of how things

[1:46:55] get decided is, becomes important if this language

[1:46:59] is what dictates how staff and um Uh, how staff works

[1:47:06] with the community with the bond oversight committee

[1:47:08] and with the board of school trustees in making these

[1:47:12] decisions. So as an example, just to, to go back several

[1:47:17] years, there was no mention of portables in any of

[1:47:21] this language and so portables were routine. not a

[1:47:25] part of the consideration process or not a not a dictated

[1:47:29] form of this of the communi of the decision making

[1:47:32] process so they may have informally considered how

[1:47:36] many portables were on a campus, how they were used

[1:47:40] whether or not that was a factor in deciding whether

[1:47:43] or not to renovate or replace the school. By adding

[1:47:47] in this language, we wanted to create a mechanism

[1:47:50] by which a temporary facility had an impact on decision

[1:47:55] making when it came to replacements or renovations

[1:47:58] So without that language in the policy or the regulation

[1:48:01] that dictated the work of staff, then, or, or at least

[1:48:05] looked to try and create a requirement in that area

[1:48:09] It wouldn't guarantee that that was a part of the

[1:48:12] consideration. So I think that's where some of this

[1:48:15] language stuff and I, I, I understand and I hear that

[1:48:18] idea of being in the weeds because I, I can feel, you

[1:48:22] know, how, how complicated it can be to sort of group

[1:48:25] decide on, on individual words and language. Um, I

[1:48:29] think the concern is that without having this in that

[1:48:33] regulation or the policy is what happens if we don't

[1:48:36] have that mechanism. So I think while I understand

[1:48:41] that. The tediousness of some of this language specification

[1:48:47] I think ultimately the import is if we don't have

[1:48:51] regulations that comport to actions that we want taken

[1:48:55] and it becomes custom as we will see with 7121 to

[1:48:59] sort of just grant waivers or ignore those regulations

[1:49:03] or policies, then we get into a position where the

[1:49:06] work that we're doing is, is not as effective as it

[1:49:10] could be. And it's ideally this was an this is a policy

[1:49:15] from 2001 ideally this is a policy that outlives all

[1:49:20] of our time on the bond oversight committee and gives

[1:49:22] a, a framework by which future members of this committee

[1:49:27] can bring up, uh, concerns about replacements. Does

[1:49:30] that help? Yeah, definitely, and I totally understand

[1:49:34] why we want to talk about portables and add that um

[1:49:37] into the, the regulations and things. Um, I just, I

[1:49:42] feel like Like you said, like, maybe we're digging

[1:49:46] a little too deep, um, for like, What we should be

[1:49:50] accomplishing today. I don't know, I, I, I, I just

[1:49:54] feel like we've spent so much time um on something

[1:49:59] that I know that people in the administrative office

[1:50:01] have worked really hard on, um, and I know that everybody

[1:50:04] has good intentions. I just I don't know, maybe. Help

[1:50:09] I feel like we're spending too much time on it. I

[1:50:12] appreciate that feedback, Miss Helen, and, and I, I

[1:50:14] am ready to move on, but we're going to, yes, Yvette

[1:50:19] I just want to add, uh, one of the reasons why, uh

[1:50:23] um, this is, this regulation, both these regulations

[1:50:26] are so important to me. Um, when I got on the bond

[1:50:30] oversight committee, I guess it's been what, I don't

[1:50:31] know, 78 years, it's been a while, um, we didn't have

[1:50:37] we weren't, when we looked at, uh, repairs of facilities

[1:50:42] replacements, some schools were getting repairs while

[1:50:45] other schools were getting replacements. There was

[1:50:47] a lot of inequity. And, uh, because we weren't addressing

[1:50:52] uh, the issue of portables, I will talk about Matt

[1:50:55] Kelly for example. Matt Kelly Elementary School had

[1:50:58] a ton of portables some work, some didn't, um, and

[1:51:03] this is what I think really, uh, I think, uh, put

[1:51:07] a fire under my hat, uh, was seeing some of the inequities

[1:51:12] Especially with a lot of our older schools who had

[1:51:15] a ton of uh portables like I said earlier, uh, like

[1:51:18] I said to staff, really appreciate the work they've

[1:51:21] done getting rid of uh we've gotten rid of a ton of

[1:51:24] portables where they've been reassigned, put it like

[1:51:26] that because our new our newer areas that are booming

[1:51:29] where we're overstaffed, we're having to use those

[1:51:32] because we're overstaffed, but they were a lot of

[1:51:35] them were being. And used in the older schools and

[1:51:38] and they were just there year after year after year

[1:51:41] after year and so that's why we pushed so hard uh

[1:51:45] in this work to try to deal with these portables and

[1:51:48] make sure that the portables had weight when staff

[1:51:51] was considering um what they were going to do with

[1:51:54] with these sites going forward so I hope that helps

[1:51:57] clarify. Um, at least my, my intention, um, I, I, I

[1:52:03] I understand, and I, I would like to move forward

[1:52:05] on this because we do have other things we have to

[1:52:07] get through. This is Chris. I'm going to make a suggestion

[1:52:10] and I appreciate Walter bringing it up because words

[1:52:13] do matter and with no disrespect, regulations have

[1:52:15] the weight of being basically a law to implement stuff

[1:52:19] so that that does make intent. Very important. So

[1:52:24] whether we spend time, I, and I get what you were

[1:52:26] saying, Jessica, to the layperson it's gonna be like

[1:52:29] why are we debating this stuff? It's all in how you

[1:52:31] interpret it. And if it's not in writing, it doesn't

[1:52:34] exist. So if you as a parent want to argue about X

[1:52:37] Y, and Z, and if it's not in regulation, you can be

[1:52:40] blown off just because, well, it doesn't address it

[1:52:42] in the reg. So let's come back to what Walter's saying

[1:52:45] Maybe we just say we voted, we made our recommendations

[1:52:48] on language change. As you present that to the superintendent's

[1:52:51] office, would you at least have them take a look at

[1:52:54] as the, uh, as our liaison's going to in letter E

[1:52:58] removing the first sentence. Or adding and or trustee

[1:53:04] to that and or because at this point the way it reads

[1:53:09] if you're going to request a replacement consideration

[1:53:12] it doesn't meet the requirements of this regulation

[1:53:16] then the only person they as a community person that

[1:53:18] you can res allegedly report to. Is the the regional

[1:53:23] superintendent. Nobody knows who the heck that is

[1:53:26] as a, as a general rule. So it just seems preclusive

[1:53:29] Or 3, just get rid of letter E and. And you don't

[1:53:34] deal with it at all. So those, I would just say that

[1:53:37] we just make a suggestion that staff present those

[1:53:40] 3. Possibilities for them to consider as they review

[1:53:43] our tweaks. So to that end, because, well, it would

[1:53:49] be because we are deciding as a body whether or not

[1:53:51] to make this recommendation because that is to trust

[1:53:55] that is to President Stevens's point, which is that

[1:53:58] an individual we need to make that recommendation

[1:54:01] as a voting body say without objection to the board

[1:54:05] would you consider having this language be discussed

[1:54:08] by staff? You don't have to do it as a formal motion

[1:54:12] Otherwise I don't believe that it might it bears the

[1:54:14] weight of the full committee. It becomes what we need

[1:54:18] to understand that the majority accepts that proposal

[1:54:21] I'll then see if they accept the idea. OK, so Chris

[1:54:26] has made a motion that I'm only making a suggestion

[1:54:34] That staff when they present our changes explain that

[1:54:38] we had this discussion with some potential changes

[1:54:42] OK, I think we're, and if the board doesn't object

[1:54:47] then you don't have to do it by motion. What do you

[1:54:49] want, Walter Walter make his own motion. Well, yeah

[1:54:52] I wouldn't make a motion because it was the same thing

[1:54:53] that Ms. Williams went over with when she said some

[1:54:56] schools don't have adequate what other schools have

[1:54:58] and that's basically what it falls back on when it's

[1:55:00] saying you have to go talk to certain wards to get

[1:55:02] it done. I understand, but here a motion if we can

[1:55:05] change the language. But, so here's, here's my, my

[1:55:09] issue is that we had a motion on this recommendation

[1:55:12] and when Chris made that motion. There was they we

[1:55:16] chose not to include that as a part of the recommendation

[1:55:21] Gina, I just was gonna take it up as a secondary. I

[1:55:24] I hear what you're saying. I don't want you guys to

[1:55:26] commit an open meeting law, so I'm gonna say you're

[1:55:28] outside of the agendas of this. I hear what you're

[1:55:30] saying and I am more than happy to say a lot of words

[1:55:33] when I present this next week. OK, I think we need

[1:55:36] to move on at this point. So we are moving on from

[1:55:41] we've made a motion, we've approved that motion. We're

[1:55:43] moving on from 2.07. We are now moving to, sorry, 2.06

[1:55:50] Moving to 2.07, this is regulation 7121 review. I

[1:55:55] do want to give an update before we start this conversation

[1:55:58] because one of the things that we noticed when we

[1:56:00] talked about this last month was how woefully out

[1:56:03] of date some of this information was to the point

[1:56:06] where at one point we had, I had even made the comment

[1:56:08] the suggestion that we could possi possibly not use

[1:56:11] this regulation. When as an executive committee we

[1:56:16] met and discussed the actual language about this, it

[1:56:19] it, it became very clear, very, very quickly that

[1:56:24] between the executive committee that we were not in

[1:56:26] a position to, to make this sort of as we've seen

[1:56:30] from 71. 12, that it is very challenging to make granular

[1:56:37] level, uh, recommendations on this as a, as a large

[1:56:40] committee. So when we consulted with Brandon on our

[1:56:44] options for what to do. One of our options became

[1:56:48] and this is why it is an action item where we can

[1:56:50] make a recommendation to the board of school trustees

[1:56:54] that they request the superintendent to review this

[1:56:59] this regulation with staff and direct them to be able

[1:57:03] to make the changes that will then be brought forward

[1:57:05] to us the way in which 712117112 would happen. So

[1:57:12] what we are discussing today is whether or not we

[1:57:16] want to make a, not, not the specifics of this, whether

[1:57:19] we are making a recommendation to the board of school

[1:57:21] trustees to ask the superintendent to pursue the changes

[1:57:27] to this regulation. Given in and keeping in mind that

[1:57:30] last month when we talked about this we have found

[1:57:32] that this policy has routinely resulted in waivers

[1:57:36] and has since uh in in practice has has been so outdated

[1:57:42] that it is, it is not effective in its current state

[1:57:45] so that is the conversation that we are talking about

[1:57:47] right now, um. So I will open it up to discussion

[1:57:52] I'm sorry, yes, um, I'm not, I'm not quite sure I'm

[1:57:55] understanding what are we, what are, what are, what

[1:57:57] are you asking of us? Um, so you're going to present

[1:58:00] to us 7121, and, and, and this is to, to make a recommendation

[1:58:07] Um, to the board of trustees that they instruct staff

[1:58:12] or superintendent to have staff review 7121 and make

[1:58:20] some kind of recommendation about new policy around

[1:58:24] or or revise this policy to present to the bond oversight

[1:58:27] committee so we would then be getting that recommendation

[1:58:30] uh, that recommendation from staff to us bond. Side

[1:58:34] commit, we would look at it and then our recommendation

[1:58:36] would then go to the board of trustees. Correct. That

[1:58:39] is correct because when we talked about this last

[1:58:42] month and we looked to try and get facilities direct

[1:58:44] input on that, that became the process by which we

[1:58:49] had to do it last month. No, that is totally fine

[1:58:52] So I was being charged with what we are being charged

[1:58:54] with is whether or not we are going to make a recommendation

[1:58:57] to the board of school trustees for them to. Request

[1:59:01] of the superintendent to ask facilities to review

[1:59:04] this policy, this regulation, excuse me, yes, Chris

[1:59:08] I guess I'm because you're right. What when we discussed

[1:59:11] with you, myself and Al, we were like we don't even

[1:59:14] know what this is, so staff has not made any changes

[1:59:17] to this. How, why are we, why are we reviewing it

[1:59:20] then? We are not. We need to be able to, it is on

[1:59:24] our agenda to move this to board of school trustees

[1:59:27] because without that we are not in a. Position to

[1:59:30] request staff to make the changes themselves and so

[1:59:33] staff will take into consideration the new CEO non-functional

[1:59:37] grass, the use of the term turf, all those other components

[1:59:40] that are there, discuss it and bring it back because

[1:59:44] overparking we talked about it one of the meetings

[1:59:47] and if there's need for the muni. With civil governments

[1:59:51] to give you some waivers that come in on parking, those

[1:59:53] types of things, so they'll flush it out if the trustees

[1:59:56] refer or the superintendent refers it back to staff

[1:59:59] and then this will come back to us, correct? And staff

[2:00:02] is also they have the ability to involve how they

[2:00:06] want bond oversight in the in the creation of that

[2:00:10] policy. Is that, is that more clear? OK. Do we have

[2:00:15] any other discussion when it comes to online? Are

[2:00:21] we still at Quorm? Correct. All right, I'd like to

[2:00:26] make, if there's no further discussion, uh, is there

[2:00:29] any, there's no further discussion, but let's ask

[2:00:31] for public comment, please. Is there? Thank you. OK

[2:00:35] go ahead. Um, I, I'd like to make a motion that, um

[2:00:40] uh, that the bond oversight committee is making a

[2:00:43] uh, recommendation to the board of trustees to instruct

[2:00:46] the superintendent to have staff review policy regulation

[2:00:51] regulation 7121. Um, uh, for revision, uh, and, um

[2:00:58] and brought forward, brought back to the bond oversight

[2:01:00] committee for our recommendations. Thank you, Ms. Williams

[2:01:04] Thank you, Mr. Flatt. We have a motion and we have

[2:01:06] a second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye, aye, aye

[2:01:11] aye opposed. Hearing none, let the record show that

[2:01:15] Mr. Jones had stepped out for that particular vote

[2:01:17] please. Thank you. All right, that closes 2.06. We're

[2:01:22] going to move on to 2.07 future agenda items that

[2:01:26] we have not already, um, discussed or talked about

[2:01:32] Do we have any items that we would like to discuss

[2:01:35] Or propose All right, then we will move on. Do we

[2:01:44] have any, uh, well, we have no motion, but do you

[2:01:46] have any public comment on 2.07? OK, thank you. We

[2:01:50] are going to move on to, uh, number 3, 3.01. This

[2:01:54] is the public comment period. So a member wishing

[2:01:58] the public on matters that were not a part of the

[2:02:00] agenda. Valerie, do we have any public comment in

[2:02:03] this section? All right, we will move on to 4.01 adjournment

[2:02:09] Um, I have a motion to adjourn from Christie. Do we

[2:02:12] have a second? A second from Mr. Flatt. Uh, all in

[2:02:17] favor, please say aye opposed. Aye hearing none. Uh

[2:02:23] can we also make a note that Mr. Jones was not present

[2:02:25] for the adjournment vote? Thank you very much. That

[2:02:27] concludes this meeting of the Bond Oversight Committee

[2:02:29] meeting at 1:15 p.m. Thank you.

Bond Oversight Committee - Apr 21 2026

Transcript