[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.