[0:05] Board of Education to order. I think you all, one, two, three, four, five people here and a couple people on Zoom for joining us this evening.

[0:15] Tonight, I'm going to start the meeting by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Please join me if you choose.

[0:40] All right. I will now call roll. As I say the name of each of our board members, please respond present. And then staff, you can introduce yourselves as you present this evening.

[0:53] Board Vice President Megan Sweet,

[0:56] President, Board Clerk Gary Lim,

[0:58] Board Member Ryan Lalone, I am here

[1:01] and Board Member Jennifer Williams

[1:02] is going to be absent this evening.

[1:05] Moving on to our closed session action report,

[1:08] the Board did not take any action

[1:09] in closed session this evening.

[1:12] We now have modifications to the agenda.

[1:14] Are there any requests to modify the agenda this evening?

[1:18] Seeing none, I will move on.

[1:21] Next we have approval of the minutes

[1:22] minutes from our May 31st special board meeting.

[1:25] Do I have a motion to approve the minutes

[1:27] from the May 31st special board meeting

[1:28] of the Board of Education?

[1:30] I move.

[1:31] Oh, that was a tie.

[1:33] I'll second.

[1:33] Okay, so that was a clerk limb

[1:35] and vice president's suite as a second,

[1:38] so I have a motion and a second.

[1:39] Board members, all those in favor say aye.

[1:41] Aye.

[1:42] Aye, and that passes four to zero.

[1:46] We now have the communications portion of our agenda.

[1:49] The first item on this agenda is public comments.

[1:51] It's Ms. Lonergan.

[1:52] Can you explain to anyone in the audience here or on Zoom

[1:56] how we will be receiving public comments

[1:59] under this communications agenda this evening?

[2:01] Thank you, President Little.

[2:03] The first public comment period is for items

[2:05] that are not on tonight's agenda

[2:06] but are under the board's jurisdiction.

[2:08] If you have a public comment

[2:10] on something related to school district business

[2:12] that is not on our agenda tonight,

[2:14] please either turn a speaker slip in

[2:17] or if you are joining us via Zoom,

[2:20] please find and use the raise your hand feature now.

[2:24] Once we have hands raised, President, I'll call your name, and you will have up to three

[2:31] minutes to make a public comment.

[2:32] A timer will be displayed to help you keep track of how long you've been speaking.

[2:37] When the timer ends, please wrap up your comments.

[2:40] Once we start public comments, we will be unable to accept additional raised hands.

[2:46] Thank you.

[2:46] Thank you very much.

[2:48] I don't have any speaker slips.

[2:49] do we have anybody on zoom with their hands raised we do not okay three two one

[2:55] we're gonna keep going now we move into the written correspondence miss

[2:59] london do we have any written correspondence related to this evening's

[3:02] agenda thank you president little the board did not receive any written

[3:05] correspondence related to tonight's agenda all righty now we are going to

[3:09] move on to our reports from our employee organizations starting with the

[3:14] AEA, is Charlie Sutterfield on Zoom?

[3:18] He is not.

[3:19] He is not.

[3:20] But I do have a super special cameo

[3:24] that I would like to introduce.

[3:27] This is Ms. Nancy Reed.

[3:29] She is a teacher at Alameda High,

[3:32] and she is one of the incoming co-AEA presidents.

[3:36] So maybe take it away a little bit.

[3:38] I know it's-

[3:39] Take it away a little bit.

[3:40] Hi, I'm Nancy Reed, and Brian,

[3:43] and it's nice to see you again.

[3:44] And I've been teaching at Alameda High for nine years now,

[3:49] teaching computer science and multimedia art.

[3:52] And I really look forward to working with you all

[3:56] and staff on a smooth transition

[3:59] and to keep moving forward on the district's goals

[4:02] and a successful parcel tax.

[4:04] Thank you, the elephant in the room.

[4:07] Which is important to all of us.

[4:08] Absolutely.

[4:09] Wonderful, thank you so much.

[4:11] Welcome and we look forward to hearing your reports and partnering with you as well. Oh, and yes, and I'm representing also Martha Zank

[4:17] Who is the co-president and she should be here later?

[4:22] Expected sounds great. Thank you

[4:27] Miss Azo I don't see any Keegan CSA 27 president, but is she online? No, we don't have

[4:34] Any reps from CSA or 27 or 860 tonight on

[4:39] Okay, so we're going to move on. I don't see our PTA council representative Gabby Badia in the audience, but is she on Zoom?

[4:48] She is. Yay.

[4:54] Ms. Badia, you should be able to unmute yourself and whenever you're ready.

[4:59] Can everybody hear me?

[5:00] We can.

[5:01] Yes.

[5:01] So good evening everybody, good evening President Niddle School Board members and President

[5:08] de Scuderia and General Public.

[5:10] I'm sorry I'm not able to be there but I just want to acknowledge the tremendous work that

[5:15] was this year during the school.

[5:18] Most of the school had their first activities in campus after these two years of pandemic

[5:23] and every family was very happy also the students.

[5:27] I think it's very important to say that is a tremendous work that everybody did and we're

[5:35] doing the best for continue the support for make the best public education and everybody

[5:40] is already talking about the parcel tax and I think that's a really important work that

[5:44] we can work together and that's it.

[5:47] Have a great summer.

[5:48] Thank you so much.

[5:50] Next we'll move on to our board member report starting with Vice President Sweet.

[5:55] I don't have much to report except for to thank all the teachers, staff, leadership for a really

[6:03] great school year and I hope you have a restful summer. Fabulous. Board clerk Gary Lim. Yes,

[6:08] I just want to take this opportunity for our last meeting of the school year to thank my

[6:14] outstanding colleagues on this board. You're extremely exceptional. I wanted to let you

[6:22] I know how much I appreciate your sacrifices that each one of you have made to step up and do what's best for the students of Alameda.

[6:29] You're an incredible team and I think that issue being knowledge, the sacrifices that each and every one of you make.

[6:36] I know you have to balance your families, your careers and for that I think that I couldn't be more happy to again come back on this board to be with this phenomenal group.

[6:46] Thank you, Superintendent Sugaderi, for the outstanding job that you do day in and day out.

[6:52] Thank you to all your staff, but most of all, thank you for being such a great partner with this governance team.

[6:58] And last but not least, thank you, Kerry, for always making our lives so much easier and

[7:03] always attending to our needs.

[7:05] And again, what a great school year and I look forward to August when we all come back because I couldn't imagine a better team to work with.

[7:14] Beat that, board member Lalone.

[7:16] I want to take mine back and do it with Gary.

[7:20] I have no idea.

[7:22] Did you just say you had nothing?

[7:24] Wow.

[7:27] If you can't beat it, join it.

[7:29] I just, yeah, I'll just say did not everything.

[7:33] It's been a crazy last five months or so, six months.

[7:37] And I look forward to seeing everybody in August and hoping that all of you have a refreshing break.

[7:42] break and a well-deserved break ahead.

[7:45] Next we move on to Superintendent Scuderi's report.

[7:49] I think my report's embedded in item one tonight,

[7:52] so I'll defer to that.

[7:53] Okay, fabulous.

[7:55] All right, we're now gonna go on to the approval

[7:57] of the Consent Calendar.

[7:59] Prior to hearing a motion on this action item,

[8:01] do we have any public comments on the Consent Calendar?

[8:04] I see no public speaker slips.

[8:07] Ms. Lonergan, but are there any hands raised?

[8:10] There are not, so I'm just going to announce,

[8:12] Again, that it is time for public comments on our consent calendar.

[8:16] If you're joining us on Zoom and you have a comment on anything on the consent calendar,

[8:21] please raise your hand now or we will move on.

[8:25] There are no hands raised.

[8:26] Okay, great.

[8:27] Do I have a motion to approve the consent calendar?

[8:30] A move.

[8:31] Vice President Sweet moves, do I have a second?

[8:34] And Clerk Lim seconds.

[8:36] So we have a motion and a second.

[8:37] All those in favor say aye.

[8:39] Aye.

[8:40] And it sounds like that item votes passes unanimously.

[8:45] Ms. Lonergan, before we move on

[8:47] to the general business portion of this evening,

[8:49] could you please explain to folks

[8:51] how we will be taking public comment

[8:54] on the general business items this evening?

[8:56] Yes, thank you, President Little.

[8:58] As we move through this part of the agenda,

[9:00] Board President Little will read the title

[9:02] of the agenda item.

[9:03] If a member of the audience or a member joining us

[9:06] on Zoom would like to make a public comment

[9:08] on that agenda item, please find and use the raise your hand feature on Zoom and

[9:14] you can do that as soon as you hear the title of the item. Staff will give the

[9:18] board their presentation and then it'll be time for public comments. Depending on

[9:23] the number of speakers we have, we'll probably have three minutes per public

[9:27] comment tonight.

[9:30] A timer will be displayed to help you keep track of

[9:32] how long you've been speaking. When the timer ends, please wrap up your

[9:35] comments and once the public comment period starts for each one of our

[9:40] agenda items we will be unable to accept additional raised hands on that

[9:44] agenda item.

[9:47] All right let's get down to it. Our first general business item this

[9:50] evening is the year-end review celebrating our progress and sustaining

[9:55] focus on the challenges. This is an informational item being presented this

[9:59] evening by our very own Superintendent Scuderi. Take it away. Thank you very

[10:04] much present little and members of the board and members of the community and

[10:08] staff even though we don't exactly have a sellout crowd tonight it's a good

[10:16] opportunity to read I think some important acknowledgments into the

[10:27] record at the very least last time we came to you we sort of articulated

[10:33] Is that work?

[10:38] It's pointing, but it's not clicking.

[10:40] Oh, I'm not trying to point.

[10:41] I'm trying to advance the slide.

[10:47] Point towards there.

[10:50] Should I just go down there?

[10:51] Is that easier?

[10:53] No, I'll do it.

[11:04] Mine's not advancing.

[11:14] I guess we could...

[11:17] We're just wrapping up the challenges

[11:18] and milestones from last week

[11:20] just before we get to

[11:22] your own review and celebration.

[11:25] Okay.

[11:28] Okay.

[11:29] There we go.

[11:30] Oh, look at that.

[11:31] It's like sliding, sliding.

[11:33] So I'll just stay here because we don't need one more transition.

[11:38] So last time we came before you, we tried to outline and map some of the significant

[11:43] challenges and milestones ahead, but we really thought it would be important to end the

[11:47] year.

[11:49] Not to gloss over the challenges that still exist, but really to acknowledge some of

[11:53] of the meaningful progress that our staff has made this year.

[11:57] Been leaning on the work of a person named Theresa Amabile

[12:01] who really talks about the fact that accountability

[12:04] is often the first thing we look at

[12:06] when we talk about making progress in systems.

[12:09] And I think that plays an important place.

[12:11] On the other end, there can be broad

[12:12] and sometimes somewhat empty recognition and affirmation

[12:16] but really in the middle what she contends

[12:19] is that one way to continue to motivate people

[12:22] is to acknowledge their progress in meaningful work. Actually, making progress in meaningful

[12:27] work is the motivator for the workforce that we have and acknowledging that as a way to

[12:33] kind of keep momentum and motivation. So just briefly across the system, I certainly won't

[12:39] read these slides. This one I might read a few things of because I want to start, Member

[12:43] Sweet acknowledged our teachers and really just a central, central part of what we

[12:48] we do here. It's hard to calculate all the variables that our teachers solve for during

[12:52] the day. It is difficult to imagine the unpredictable nature of the job, though I think if you've

[12:58] never done it, you can imagine that it flows more often than it actually does. This was

[13:05] something that Peter Green wrote in Forbes in 2021, and I thought it was just a good

[13:10] exemplar of one secondary teacher's two-week period of time. Certainly examples at elementary,

[13:17] at preschool, all over the system.

[13:19] 150 pages about, papers about colonial developments do.

[13:23] 15 minutes for each.

[13:24] A thorough reading and thoughtful response or grading.

[13:27] That's 37 hours of work.

[13:29] We don't actually play 37 hours of overtime to our staff.

[13:32] Designing multiple lessons a day for five days a week

[13:35] at a pretty intense pace.

[13:37] Quizzes, how do we assess where our students are

[13:39] and support them in their learning?

[13:41] The most time economical ways of doing that

[13:44] are things like traditionally true false tests

[13:46] or quizzes, multiple choice quizzes,

[13:49] but we also know that those provide sometimes

[13:51] the least useful information.

[13:53] So to really assess our students,

[13:55] our best teachers are out there using essays,

[13:57] projects and presentations.

[14:00] Those things take a long time to assess.

[14:02] We know about the power of connecting with students

[14:04] one-on-one, but to do that with 25 to 30

[14:07] elementary contacts or 150 secondary contacts

[14:11] is doable but incredibly hard to do.

[14:14] So I give this example just by way of acknowledging the complexity.

[14:18] Sometimes we just say, hey, we appreciate our staff, but that's just emblematic of one variation of the challenge

[14:23] that a lot of our teachers face.

[14:26] Our principals and our assistant principals at the end of the year want to acknowledge them.

[14:31] I've often leaned into this study because when I reread it, it's still compelling.

[14:35] 2010, University of Minnesota, University of Toronto, a joint study.

[14:39] Looking at 180 schools in I think six or seven states.

[14:43] No findings that a school that was really showing improvement for students or improvement

[14:48] in school culture was doing that without the presence of a quality school leader.

[14:54] So thank you to our principals.

[14:55] I wanted to point to that drawing in the middle of this slide as we close the year.

[15:00] That was done by a first grader at Love. It's hanging in Ms. Lagderman's office. Dear Ms.

[15:06] Lagderman, thank you for making sure that we are good. It's just a simple kind of moving

[15:10] thing to me. And from where I come from in terms of an instructional presence, the thing

[15:17] that I like most about that is the idea that a child or a student has become acclimated

[15:21] and comfortable with a principal being present in the classroom regularly, not a plant manager

[15:25] or a disciplinarian, but a genuine instructional leader.

[15:29] Our classified staff, too many contributions to acknowledge, so what we thought we'd do

[15:34] is just put every job classification that we have in the classified service as a way

[15:39] of expressing how many different people do so many different things to make this school

[15:43] district work.

[15:44] I want to thank all of those folks as we close the year.

[15:48] District level progress, I was really shocked when I saw myself in this picture and

[15:52] then somewhat relieved that the board was in this picture as well.

[15:55] so it wouldn't look like I just completely put my own self in there, but our district-level

[16:02] progress just wanted to acknowledge that we have distilled our strategic goals into eight

[16:07] project areas.

[16:08] We've been talking to you all about a lot of those areas this spring.

[16:11] We have sustained that focus over the year.

[16:13] That's via the contribution of many of our staff.

[16:16] And frankly, the support of this board.

[16:18] We have identified and shared multi-year decision and project timelines for the board and

[16:22] community, I think as President Little alluded to just before the meeting, we really need

[16:26] to kind of get that information out relative to those challenges we talked about last time.

[16:31] And at this Board's request, we've made our LCAP and budget processes a year-round discussion,

[16:37] which I think has led to a little more work on the front end, but a lot more alignment

[16:41] in terms of how we're talking about resources and programs together.

[16:45] Grading policies and practices, I won't, again, read all of these slides you heard

[16:49] from Dr. Walton and Ms. Carol earlier this spring, we have been working with the contributions

[16:56] again of a group of teachers who are piloting one or more equitable grading practices.

[17:01] There is a formal cohort that will be working with Joe Feldman's group, Crescendo Learning,

[17:07] this coming, they've been meeting in the spring but will be meeting again formally

[17:12] in the fall.

[17:13] There is a full day of professional learning at all of our secondary schools coming

[17:19] this August and our goal is then to bring suggested changes after talking with AEA,

[17:25] our academic committee, and our teacher pilot group to bring proposed revisions to that

[17:30] board policy and subcommittee late summer or early fall.

[17:33] We wanted to do it at the end of this year but we slid behind just a little bit.

[17:37] I would acknowledge that it is encouraging that after surveying our secondary teachers,

[17:42] a substantial number of those secondary teachers, I think about 65, 66 percent are using

[17:47] one or more of these practices already. Language and literacy, I can't articulate this progress

[17:52] better than Nancy Lai did when she came here this spring, but we are completing with Nancy's

[17:58] leadership the first sections of a clearly articulated approach to early literacy in

[18:03] this district, something that we've needed clarity, coherence, and calibration on for

[18:08] a long time in my view, and in the view of many of our early literacy experts.

[18:13] I'm not one of them, but thank God we've got plenty of them on staff.

[18:16] This work is being designed around teacher feedback.

[18:20] There were multiple engagements this year.

[18:22] There was a committee that met regularly.

[18:24] There will be a professional learning on early literacy for TK II in August.

[18:29] And not only our team, but teachers will be facilitating that work as well.

[18:34] Pre-K to three alignment progress in that area this year.

[18:38] I want to point to our commitment to expand kindergarten day in 23 and 24 at 25. Let me

[18:44] roll that back. 23, 24, and again extending to a completely full day in 24, 25. This board

[18:50] made that decision earlier this year. Kinder committee was formed by our new-ish Director

[18:56] of Elementary, Ms. Harris, and we will continue to include preschool and TK classes in our

[19:02] instructional observations moving forward. On the Ed Services side, we've talked

[19:07] about this. Ms. Zazo, who has facilitated a lot of this work, really facilitated this

[19:12] work also in a collaborative way. We've mentioned to you before and hope the community has heard.

[19:17] We reached an agreement on weekly collaboration with AEA, really changing the structure of

[19:23] teacher learning, allocating funding and building capacity of our teachers this spring

[19:28] to lead that work in the fall, implementing the district-wide master schedule to better

[19:34] support, academic blocks, literacy, social and emotional sports, et cetera.

[19:38] Stuff that you've heard before, but stuff that I feel is worth reiterating and celebrating.

[19:43] African American student achievement, it is all of our responsibility, but I do want

[19:47] to point to some achievements Ms. Edwards and her team have drafted the job description

[19:52] for the advisor and mentoring program that will start in the fall.

[19:56] The initial orientation with those staffs and the practitioners, all who have been

[20:01] hired, was completed this spring. The scholar practices that we saw during the CCASE work

[20:07] have expanded in terms of their use at multiple sites. We'll talk about that in just a second.

[20:12] And this summer, we are running an algebra course funded through the Antibias Grant that

[20:18] we're hoping helps chip away at the deficient numbers in A to G eligibility that we still

[20:23] see in our African-American students. Be going out there with Dr. Walton next week

[20:27] to observe the summer session. And if anyone wants to come along with us, please let

[20:30] us know. Again, much more to do, but as I say at the bottom of this slide, small wins in

[20:36] our view are the building blocks of large-scale transformation. So acknowledging that we have

[20:41] a ton more to do, but there has been some progress.

[20:44] Reading in grades one through five, the CSAIS work that started two years ago, 71% of

[20:50] the CSAIS scholar students showed typical or high growth. That's about a 9% improvement

[20:55] from last year. If we're able to scale that over three years, that could potentially

[20:59] look like 25 to 30%. Math in grades one to five, the number of our African-American students

[21:05] with typical or high growth grew by 6% to 60% overall, still an unacceptable gap overall.

[21:12] But again, if we could sustain 6% over a three to four-year period, we're starting to look

[21:18] at things like 20, 25% change numbers. Overall, Lindsay will talk a little bit about this

[21:24] later tonight. We have seen a year-to-year improvement in terms of the responses that

[21:29] we're getting from African-American families on our trust survey and she'll talk about

[21:33] that.

[21:34] And I think really wanting to acknowledge that the C-State's work really started fast

[21:39] and furious about two to three years ago with the over-identification being flagged

[21:45] for over identifying African-American students in OHI or other health impaired.

[21:49] And that number of students is trending downward.

[21:52] We know there are a lot of variables at play, but it's an indicator that collectively

[21:56] what we're doing.

[21:57] You see that number of students identified go from 34 to 22 and a projected 18 in this

[22:03] fall, meaning if those numbers hold, we're one year away from exiting significant disproportionality

[22:08] for African-American students in other health impairments.

[22:12] Special education, lots of point too, but I think the thing that I'll focus in on

[22:16] briefly is an expansion of outreach to families, monthly listening sessions, the post-IEP

[22:22] surveys that they've been utilizing, and what you'll see in Lindsay's presentation

[22:25] a little later on tonight is year-to-year improvement in terms of what we're hearing

[22:30] from the survey on student-family relationships, particularly those families exclusively in

[22:37] terms of that recent to families with disabilities.

[22:40] Strategy evaluation assessment, I want to point to a few accomplishments here.

[22:44] I've already touched on the fact that our strategic plan has been distilled down to

[22:47] eight priority project areas.

[22:50] We're utilizing data more for decision-making in this district, and I want to appreciate

[22:54] Lindsay and her team for that. Four or five years ago, SchoolZilla, which is the program

[22:59] we use to look at literacy and math data regularly and to disaggregate that, I think, had four

[23:05] users in terms of school leaders in district office. That number is about 70 people regularly

[23:10] accessing that. So I could point to that as a way that we are, at least on the

[23:14] front end, in terms of a leading indicator, more people accessing data. And we've made

[23:19] multiple improvement to a number of data systems over the course of the year.

[23:25] On the HR side, last time we talked, I did note for you that there are some really challenging

[23:30] looking numbers in terms of the pool of potential teacher candidates, but our HR team is still

[23:37] working.

[23:38] HR team is now actually sitting in on interviews at the school site level to try to do quality

[23:44] assurance and some sustained calibration around those processes, making sure that

[23:49] the equity statements, the questions that we use during those interviews are used regularly.

[23:55] We will at last be integrated in introducing and implementing our new differentiated professional

[24:01] growth system. It's a new teacher evaluation tool that is less checklisty, more narrative

[24:06] and really more designed around growth than just stark yes or no answers. So we have

[24:13] a lot of work to do, obviously in terms of diversifying our staff and just filling

[24:16] positions as we talked about last time. But those are some of the things we want to outline

[24:20] as positives. Business and fiscal services. Again, as we wrap up, I really want to appreciate

[24:27] our business team and our fiscal services team. They have built, in my view, what

[24:30] is an extremely responsible budget that contains contingencies for a couple of the

[24:35] worst case scenarios that we talked about the last time we met with you in June.

[24:39] some additional cushioning that could allow us to solve some pretty significant problems

[24:46] over a 12-month timeline as opposed to a six-month or mid-year cut timeline.

[24:52] At the request of this board, we mentioned it earlier.

[24:55] We're now talking about budget year-round and tying it closer to resources.

[24:59] And our fiscal and business team have really taken on the additional challenge of diving

[25:04] deeper into the two areas that are particularly challenging for us in terms of special education

[25:10] costs, that's transportation and contract costs, and we'll have some recommendations

[25:15] and some actual steps that we've already taken by the time we see you in the fall.

[25:20] Communications, collaborated with technology department to launch the new AUSD website.

[25:25] We have gotten uniformly positive feedback on our website this year versus the previous

[25:31] this year, we have the ability to kind of do some quality control on district-wide messaging

[25:36] through individual school sites. So we're still working at that, but we think overall the

[25:42] functionality, accessibility, and design have improved. A public-facing version of

[25:46] the strategic plan was released this spring to make kind of our broader goals more

[25:50] accessible and digestible to the general public. We have initiated the inclusion

[25:55] of more students and staff voice in our weekly communications. I think you see that

[25:58] reflected in our weekly bulletin, supported the HR department in promoting the job opportunities

[26:05] that we have out there. And we're really happy to let you know that along with business services

[26:11] creating a family-friendly or hopefully more community accessible budget guide that will

[26:17] be done in August, our new and revised communications plan will be done in August

[26:21] as well that's really built around the major focus areas of the strategic plan.

[26:27] Headed for the homestretch, but I cannot not thank our operations team. Again, lots of

[26:33] things to celebrate this year. Actively monitoring and managing nine, yes, nine, construction

[26:38] and modernization projects. We have upgraded to multiple IT components and systems. I think

[26:44] we were acknowledged recently as having some of the best server and database security

[26:49] in the county in terms of public school district. We talked about the new website.

[26:54] We've developed accessible standards for custodial work to monitor and streamline how we kind

[27:00] of keep that work aligned across sites.

[27:04] Another area where it's tough because so much of our workforce is still substitute.

[27:08] And really, thanks to the intersection of business services and food services, technology,

[27:15] for streamlining the process for qualifying students for free or reduced meals.

[27:19] This was a big accomplishment this year that had a dual benefit.

[27:22] that more families who qualify

[27:24] for free and reduced price meals, receiving them,

[27:26] and as a result, the district's allocation

[27:29] of state supplemental funds increasing,

[27:32] not immensely, but notably in response to that effort.

[27:38] So again, we present this stuff to you tonight,

[27:40] not to sugarcoat things, not to gloss over

[27:43] or be dismissive of the fact

[27:44] that we still have significant challenges

[27:47] and a lot of work to do,

[27:48] But I think one of the key responsibilities I have as a leader in this system is to constantly

[27:55] be thinking of how to keep our workforce engaged and motivated on the challenges that we are

[28:02] all collectively working on.

[28:04] And we really felt that it was a good opportunity to be before you, the board tonight, read

[28:08] into the record.

[28:09] Our appreciation for some of that progress and what we think is meaningful work moving

[28:13] forward.

[28:14] Thank you for listening.

[28:16] All right. Thank you so much. So before we go on to board comment or questions, we will

[28:22] take public comment. Ms. Lonergan, I don't have any speaker slips on this item, but are

[28:27] there any hands raised? Yes, we have one hand raised. Ms. Carolyn

[28:31] Broussard and James, can you please put three minutes on the clock for us?

[28:44] Okay, Ms. Broussard,

[28:45] as soon as you start, as soon as you start, the timer will start as well.

[28:51] Hi, everyone.

[28:52] One, can you hear me?

[28:52] We can.

[28:54] Great, thank you so much for the opportunity

[28:56] to make a comment, I appreciate it.

[28:58] And thank you, Superintendent Scuderri

[28:59] for your presentation.

[29:02] There were a couple of things

[29:03] that came to mind as you were presenting.

[29:05] The first one was I believe

[29:08] teacher training and professional development

[29:10] was mentioned a few times in your presentation.

[29:12] And I was curious about whether or not

[29:14] those training sessions are mandatory

[29:17] and how do you ensure maximum participation

[29:19] and those teacher training and professional development opportunities.

[29:24] I also want to speak to some of the African American student achievement data, while some

[29:31] of the growth data is really great, I think it would be really helpful to see data that

[29:35] talks about where these students are as far as distance to grade level, but I'm appreciative

[29:43] of the acknowledgement that we're still pretty far from where we need to be in

[29:46] certain areas, particularly in math. The other thing around the number of

[29:53] students where we're seeing continued significant disproportionality of

[29:59] African Americans.

[30:02] It's great that the data is trending downward and I don't want to take away from the incredible

[30:09] efforts that this district is doing to address the significant disproportionality. I'm also

[30:14] interested in seeing is that downward trend also related to the fact that we may be graduating

[30:21] students from special education. They're just graduating from high school or leaving

[30:26] the district by some other for some other reason and that could be a reason why the trend is

[30:33] downward. So again, not to take away from the efforts that the district is making, but

[30:37] it also comes down to some degree as being a numbers game. So we just want to make

[30:41] sure that we're not overlooking the natural exiting of students as a reason as to why

[30:48] those trends are heading downward.

[30:54] And I think that's the end of my comment.

[30:56] Thank you so much.

[30:57] Thank you, Ms. Prisard. Any other hands raised, Carrie?

[31:02] No, that was the only hand.

[31:03] Okay, we'll move on to board questions and comments. Anything?

[31:09] Go ahead.

[31:11] I want to thank you for taking the time to outline all of the work that everyone's doing.

[31:16] Mr. Skidari, because I do think it's really important. I think people often miss just how much effort goes into teaching a lesson, grading work,

[31:27] communicating to the level that we have in communicating around all the work

[31:30] that we're doing. I'm deeply appreciative of the district's pivot to

[31:37] sharing about the LCAP and the budget together and on an ongoing basis. I think

[31:41] multiple times this year allowed us as board members to be able to point to the

[31:45] communication that's been ongoing and to clarify for the public why we're

[31:50] making some of the choices that we're making and without the benefit of

[31:53] being able to say that actually we've spoken about this same thing there

[31:56] voting on now 10 times that's really helpful not only for making sure that

[32:01] people have had access to the information but to making sure that

[32:04] everybody here on the dais has the information they need to be able to

[32:07] act with integrity and clarity so I appreciate all that time and effort I

[32:13] agree we always do keep our eye on the students that haven't been succeeding in

[32:16] this district and I didn't take your presentation as one of saying that

[32:20] we've we can kind of dust our hands and we're done and ready to move

[32:24] forward. I know we have a lot of hard work to do and I see this first year of the strategic

[32:28] plan as a building year so that we can actually start to implement some of the more deep and

[32:34] transformative changes that we envision for our students that are furthest from opportunity

[32:38] in this district in the coming year. So thank you for all that you and the rest of the

[32:42] district staff have done.

[32:48] I will also name, I mean, I'm sitting here watching this

[32:52] presentation like talking point talking point talking point it's you know coming

[32:58] off of two weeks ago and having that very sobering conversation about the

[33:03] complexities knowing that we've wanted to do so much for three plus years since

[33:12] having you come on in this role and having that you know that huge segue

[33:18] way of a pandemic getting in our way and it just feels like the momentum and to have this

[33:23] list of accomplishments in a year doesn't obviously to what Vice President Sweet said

[33:32] doesn't detract from that hard conversation that we had two weeks ago but there's a moment

[33:37] when you do still have to just sit back and celebrate the hard work that everybody

[33:43] everybody has done. The kids have done. The families have done. And you and everybody

[33:48] on your team who come to work every day or volunteer in our classrooms, everyone has

[33:55] a piece of that that they should be proud of. And I know working with you, and I will

[34:02] just affirm this for anybody who's either here in the audience or listening, that you're

[34:07] no sugarcoater. You know, we have very hard conversations and you know the reality

[34:13] of what we're coming up against and I just hear like when we had that special

[34:18] meeting back in May and Miss Bickey Smith came and there were tears in her eyes

[34:22] and she was talking so from the heart about for 30 years we've been talking

[34:28] about trying to make structural systemic deep changes and shifts in the way

[34:35] that we approach this work and it just feels like on the backs of many

[34:41] other boards we're finally building upon that and we have a superintendent in

[34:46] place and a team in a place and a board in place that is allowing that work to

[34:50] go forward and I understand this was just the first year of the strategic plan

[34:54] and to your point it's a building year and I know we won't lose sight of those

[34:58] kids I know that we won't lose sight of like you know just because we're

[35:03] doing great we get to like pat ourselves on the back and keep going

[35:06] that's not the way this work goes and I can guarantee that the board won't

[35:10] allow that to happen, either in partnership with you.

[35:13] So thank you, and I appreciate it, and congratulations.

[35:20] All right, anything else?

[35:22] OK, thank you.

[35:26] Come join us.

[35:28] Only I think that, are you introducing our next folks?

[35:32] You want to do it from up here?

[35:37] He's not even listening to me.

[35:38] OK, so.

[35:42] Yes, transitions are so hard.

[35:44] No, we doubled our audience size in the span of one meeting or one presentation.

[35:50] Yeah, I do want to introduce Jeremy and Sarah who are going to introduce themselves.

[35:55] And they are here tonight from Team Civics and EMC Research respectively, primarily to

[36:02] just take this thing out of my prior presentation and nervousness and transition.

[36:06] So thank you for coming in and I don't even know what I'm saying anymore.

[36:11] So Jeremy and Sarah are here because we have some very, I think, deeply important information.

[36:17] We talked last time at our first meeting in June about the forthcoming prospect of a parcel

[36:24] tax being run in March, and some preliminary polling has been conducted in regard to that

[36:31] proposition and concepts associated with it.

[36:34] So I'll turn it over to Jeremy Hauser first, and I think Sarah will be along

[36:38] as well. Well, thank you very much, Superintendent Scuderi and Madam President, members of the

[36:43] Board. It's nice to see you all. Jeremy Hauser, a founding partner with Team Civics. We've

[36:48] been hired by the district to help you undertake the process of beginning to look at renewing

[36:54] both of your parcel taxes. And tonight, we're going to talk about the first key step

[36:59] of that renewal process, which is a feasibility study, to help you determine what might

[37:05] be possible in a renewal and what is feasible in the eyes of your community.

[37:11] So before I get over to Sarah LeBat from EMC who's going to dive into the numbers from

[37:14] the polling, I thought it might be helpful to just set the context for what our big picture

[37:19] goals were in this feasibility study and to help you understand how we went about

[37:24] achieving those goals.

[37:26] So really in this process there were three goals that we were trying to accomplish.

[37:31] First and foremost, we were looking to design potential measures that would keep you whole

[37:37] as a district from a funding perspective.

[37:39] I think we all know that measures A and B-1 are a critical component of your district's

[37:44] operating budget, and those dollars are really baked in on a year-by-year basis.

[37:49] So we wanted to make sure that we were looking at options and giving you options that

[37:53] at the very minimum maintained your current levels of funding.

[37:57] So that was our first goal.

[37:58] Our second goal was to start to look at converting the rate structure of your parcel taxes to

[38:05] what we would term more litigation-proof rate structures.

[38:09] So you'll see here in a few slides that we've presented three options that we vetted with

[38:14] legal counsel to help accomplish that goal.

[38:17] And then finally, we're looking at combining both measures and A and B1.

[38:22] I know that they were authorized in different elections.

[38:26] Partial tax law is fairly flexible in when and how you renew a measure, and combining

[38:31] sources of funding is one option available to you.

[38:34] And so the numbers that you're looking at tonight are going to be looking at a measure

[38:38] that combines both A and B1.

[38:42] So how do we do this?

[38:43] We looked at three possible tax rate structures that accomplished those three goals, and then

[38:51] Then we tested them in the polling that Sarah is going to walk you through in order to understand

[38:56] the feasibility of each of these different options.

[39:00] So our first option, which we are deeming option A, is the most similar to your current

[39:05] rate structure.

[39:06] It is also a square foot per parcel rate with one key difference from your current

[39:13] measures.

[39:14] Your current measures have a cap of $7,999 that no individual property owner can pay

[39:21] more per parcel under the current rates. Option A would remove that cap and as a

[39:28] result we would actually see a decrease in the per parcel rate paid annually in

[39:34] order to generate the same amount of revenue. So in combination to maintain

[39:39] current funding levels we'd be looking at a 49 cent per square foot rate that

[39:44] would be a nine and a half cent decrease from your current rate in real

[39:49] dollars for your average single family homeowner, that's about $170 annual decrease.

[39:55] Because we are lowering the rate, we would actually see a decrease in the annual tax

[40:00] burden for every property in your community under 32,649 square feet.

[40:07] Now the flip side of that coin is that any property over that square footage would

[40:11] see an increase, right?

[40:13] And you can see on your slide here the range of what those increases might look

[40:17] like at the top end.

[40:19] So that's option A. Option B is a bit of a hybrid approach, which combines a more traditional

[40:27] flat rate parcel tax and adds a smaller square footage rate on top of that.

[40:33] The idea here is that we are raising the floor, i.e. the lower end of the rates that

[40:40] any one property owner would pay, and we're also lowering the ceiling at the high end

[40:45] in order to more equitably distribute the funding

[40:48] across different property types.

[40:50] In order to do that, we would start with a $435 per parcel

[40:55] rate, meaning that every parcel in Alameda would start

[40:58] at that rate, and then you would add 34 cents per square

[41:01] foot of building area on those properties.

[41:05] For the average single family homeowner,

[41:07] that looks virtually the same as what they are paying

[41:10] today.

[41:10] It would be a dollar and 10 cent decrease

[41:13] for the average single family homeowner.

[41:15] And we would see decreases on property types

[41:18] in the middle of the spectrum.

[41:20] So if your property is larger than 1,776 square feet

[41:24] or smaller than 45,774,

[41:28] you would see a decrease in the rate

[41:30] you pay on an annual basis.

[41:32] Now we make that up on each end of the spectrum, right?

[41:35] So with our smallest properties

[41:37] and with our largest properties.

[41:38] Under this rate, anyone smaller than 1,776 square feet or larger than 45,774 would see an increase.

[41:49] And that is how we stay revenue neutral by decreasing taxes in the middle.

[41:55] And then finally is option C, which would be converting your square footage parcel tax to a pure flat rate where every parcel pays the exact same rate.

[42:07] I know it's not common here in Alameda, but statewide this would probably represent the

[42:11] most common rate structure for school districts throughout the state.

[42:15] In order to remain revenue neutral, we'd be looking at a fairly large flat rate in combination

[42:22] between measures A and B1.

[42:24] We'd be looking at an annual rate of $1,359.

[42:29] For your average single-family homeowner, that means they're looking at an increase

[42:32] of $317.70 a year. If you're smaller than that, your increase is bigger. And all properties

[42:40] under 2,300 and 2,3 square feet would see a decrease. Obviously the flip side of that,

[42:46] any property, I'm sorry, would see an increase, and any property over that would see a decrease

[42:53] in the rate charged. So these are the three different rate structures that we

[42:58] tested in the poll to help give you a completely clear picture of the options available to you

[43:05] as you look to renew your parcel taxes. Again, accomplishing those three goals that we identified

[43:11] at the top. With that, I will kick it over to Sarah LeBat, who is going to jump into

[43:15] the numbers themselves and the results of the survey, and then we can talk about key

[43:20] findings and next steps.

[43:25] Good evening. My name is Sarah LeBat. I'm a senior principal with EMC Research. It's

[43:30] It's a lot of data.

[43:31] I'll go through it sort of quickly.

[43:33] You all have it in your packet, too, and I'm happy to take questions at the end.

[43:39] One day I'll learn how to push buttons.

[43:42] It's not just you.

[43:43] Okay, good.

[43:45] It's for swallowing.

[43:46] Thank you.

[43:46] Best of all, I could do it if you ask me.

[43:47] Okay, good.

[43:48] Wow.

[43:50] He knows how now.

[43:53] Sorry, Sarah.

[43:55] Go ahead.

[43:55] I also want to say thanks for having me tonight, and I'm not only a pollster, but

[43:58] a parent in the district.

[44:00] Just graduated one from Alameda High, and one more.

[44:02] in two years, so thank you all for all the things as a parent here. It makes me proud

[44:09] to be here. Okay, so talking about the poll, so we did a survey of likely November 2024

[44:14] voters in the district. Everything in this report today generally represents a November

[44:20] 2024 likely electorate, but in the context, we do look a little bit at a March electorate

[44:26] as well to understand the impact of potential turnout. The survey was done with a mixed

[44:29] mode methodology, meaning phone and online. And we offered it in both English and Chinese,

[44:34] which are the two languages most common among voters in Alameda. We did 600 interviews total

[44:40] among likely voters in Alameda. And to do what was laid out by Jeremy so nicely and

[44:47] understand each of the three measures, an independent understanding of how feasible

[44:54] each one is, we split that 600-interview sample into essentially three samples of 200 each.

[45:00] That are each a random representative sample of voters in the district. And so each person

[45:05] who took the survey got just one of those three questions when they got to the vote questions.

[45:10] Most of the other questions in the survey are the same, talking about additional information,

[45:14] what a measure would pay for. But this helps us get an independent measure where you don't,

[45:18] you know, it's not a realistic picture to ask them about one and then ask them about

[45:23] a different one. So rather, we split the sample to allow us to look at each of those

[45:27] independently.

[45:29] So big picture findings, what we learned here, we see and we've done a lot of polling with

[45:34] the district.

[45:34] You've done a lot of polling before all of your measures to understand where you stand.

[45:38] Voters continue to rate the district highly generally and on several key dimensions.

[45:43] We see widespread recognition that the district does need additional funding and many are

[45:47] willing to continue to pay taxes to maintain the quality of the local schools.

[45:52] Initial support for all three parcel tax measures falls a bit short of a two

[45:56] her threshold required for passage, but the square footage formula without a cap performs

[46:01] the highest.

[46:02] So that option A of the three Jeremy just walked through and we'll look at that data

[46:05] here in a moment.

[46:06] When we provide some basic clarifying information about the mechanism, it does result in significant

[46:11] additional support for the square foot no cap model.

[46:13] So just clarifying the replacement, the two measures and how it works with the

[46:18] revenue.

[46:20] It does not, that clarifying information isn't as effective with the other two

[46:24] measures.

[46:24] measures, although it does help every measure be a little bit more clear what we're asking.

[46:28] And then as we provide additional information throughout the poll, we do see additional

[46:32] potential support for a measure. The square foot no cap model, so that option A, maintains

[46:38] support around that two-thirds mark even when we deliver some potentially negative

[46:43] information that could come out in the course of a campaign. So we'll talk a little

[46:47] bit about that, too.

[46:49] Okay, so running through the data, are things in Alameda going in the right direction or

[46:54] off on the wrong track?

[46:55] We see 57% saying things are going in the right direction, 35% wrong track.

[47:00] It's pretty positive.

[47:01] We do a lot of polling here in California and in the Bay Area and it's the reverse

[47:06] in many other communities.

[47:08] You're not the only community with a pretty positive electorate, but we do see some

[47:12] significant negativity, especially as the economy feels shaky and people are concerned

[47:17] about inflation and other issues, but we see here people are in a pretty good mood and

[47:22] we do find that generally, not universally but generally, if the electorate is in a positive

[47:27] mood they are more likely to support things like revenue measures for services such as

[47:33] schools.

[47:36] We also see that voters are very likely to say that high quality schools are worth

[47:41] raising taxes.

[47:42] And, you know, we're not talking technically about a raise here, but rather replacing the

[47:47] two measures with one.

[47:48] But we see 79% agree with the statement, it's crucial to have high-quality local public

[47:53] schools even if it means raising taxes.

[47:55] And this has been consistent in this district.

[47:57] Every time we've asked it, people hear value, high-quality education, and they are willing

[48:02] to fund that through this district.

[48:04] They also trust the district to properly manage tax dollars.

[48:08] However, we do see some tax negativity, 45% agree with the statement taxes are already

[48:14] too high.

[48:14] I would never vote for a tax increase, but we see that that gets offset by the degree

[48:19] to which they value education.

[48:20] So we often see those in a little bit of conflict, and it really depends on how much

[48:25] do they value the thing as to whether they can overcome their tax sensitivity.

[48:29] We see that here.

[48:31] We also see that voters in Alameda School District don't believe that you need

[48:35] the money.

[48:36] A third believe you have a great need for money, another 49% some need and 10% a little

[48:41] need.

[48:42] So 90% are identifying that this district continues to need revenue to continue to operate.

[48:52] Failing at button pushing today.

[48:55] We also see a lot of positive ratings for the district, both overall the job the

[48:59] district is doing, the job your teachers are doing, people are very happy with the

[49:04] job teachers are doing, the quality of education.

[49:06] The job the Board of Trustees is doing, management of monies, we do see a little bit of softness

[49:12] in their satisfaction with paying adequate salaries and benefits.

[49:16] We've asked a lot of these questions over many years and they've been pretty similar.

[49:20] And I think you do a good job of maintaining a positive relationship with the community

[49:25] generally and they believe you're doing a pretty good job of doing what you do.

[49:32] Medial button lessons.

[49:35] Okay.

[49:36] Okay.

[49:36] So these are the three tax measures we tested.

[49:38] I'm not going to read them all out.

[49:40] They are in the packet for anybody who wants to read all the words, but we've bolded the

[49:44] difference in the three.

[49:45] So remember, we did 200 interviews with each of three groups of voters.

[49:50] So one group got the split A version, that's the no cap, square footage, split B, that's

[49:56] a second group that got the combo, and then split C got the flat rate.

[50:00] So these are the three we tested, otherwise all of the language in the three measures

[50:03] remained identical.

[50:04] with the idea that we wanted to make sure that we were controlling any differences in the measures that we were testing to just understand the difference in their support level for the three different mechanisms being tested.

[50:18] And when we asked them this question before we've really given them any information or told them anything about a measure, just asking them the question as it would appear on the ballot.

[50:28] We see support for each of them is short of that two-thirds threshold needed to pass.

[50:32] We do see a higher support for the A version, the square footage with no cap, as well as

[50:38] the C flat rate version, and the lowest support for the combo measure, but all of them below

[50:44] that two-thirds threshold to start.

[50:48] After the ballot questions, they each got a clarifying statement about the revenue mechanism

[50:53] they were asked about.

[50:54] So again, same groups got each of these three statements.

[50:58] We're at clarified, here's what you're paying now, 58.5 cents per square foot

[51:02] with the cap, remember there's two with a 7999 cap, so it totals to a cap of about $16,000.

[51:09] This replaces that with this one tax, and here's what that tax is.

[51:13] So it's a pretty basic statement.

[51:15] We also included in this statement a sentence that said, this is generating the same amount

[51:20] of revenue for the district, and then for each model we said the difference for A,

[51:26] reducing the total tax rate for most parcels, including all homeowners, for B, reducing

[51:31] for some and increasing for others, and for C, reducing the tax rate for half while increasing

[51:36] it for others.

[51:36] So try to give some perspective of what's the difference to you, the voter.

[51:40] And when we give just that clarifying statement, you can see here's A, B, and C again.

[51:45] We've already looked at that first vote.

[51:46] This is just the yes side.

[51:48] But the difference just in giving them this one piece of information, we see a strong

[51:52] increase in support for the square footage with no cap model to 74%.

[51:57] that, we don't see similar gains in the B or C model, giving them a similar sort of

[52:02] parallel statement. So, you know, one of the questions we had coming into this was not

[52:06] only is there a mechanism that voters are more receptive to, but also, when we give

[52:12] a basic explanation of what it means to them just mechanically on how much they're

[52:16] going to pay, how does that impact their interest in that particular mechanism?

[52:20] And when we see the no cap version, it's probably the easiest to explain, the most

[52:25] straightforward, and gain support most significantly after that statement.

[52:32] We also tested a number of priorities in the district, you know, the things that a measure

[52:37] could pay for and ask on a one to seven scale how important is it that this item is funded

[52:43] by a parcel tax in the school district.

[52:45] And we see very strong numbers for academic, maintaining strong academic programs, maintaining

[52:52] quality schools, attracting and retaining excellent teachers.

[52:55] So a lot of the things that if you read those ballot questions earlier, we included a lot

[53:00] of these phrases in the ballot question.

[53:03] You've done a lot of research in your district.

[53:05] You know what your voters are interested in.

[53:08] And so the things that are testing well here are the things that have been popular

[53:12] among your voters in prior polling and in your prior measures as well.

[53:16] And they're really interested in core academics, quality schools, attracting and retaining

[53:21] teachers.

[53:29] So after we gave all of those pieces of information, we also gave a few more pieces of information

[53:35] about reasons you'd be potentially placing a measure on the ballot, maintaining the health

[53:40] of local schools.

[53:41] The general quality of life in Alameda allows you to retain teachers, keeping funds local,

[53:47] all the things that a district or public agency can say about a revenue measure.

[53:51] We see all three measures gain and support.

[53:54] So we've already seen the initial vote and the vote after the explanation.

[53:58] Now we're looking at the vote after additional information.

[54:01] So that's the additional information that we gave following that basic explanation.

[54:05] And we see all the different versions, A, B, and C, all gain in support with that

[54:10] no-cap version.

[54:12] That's the green line, gaining the most up to 80 percent yes, which is astronomically

[54:17] high and we want to be thoughtful about what that means.

[54:20] But, you know, they do express a strong interest in that measure.

[54:24] I think it's very clear.

[54:25] The B, which is the purple, goes to 68% after additional information.

[54:30] And the C, which is the blue, the flat rate, goes to 67% also.

[54:34] So all three really reach that two-thirds plateau.

[54:38] The no-cap version, the square foot no-cap version does outperform the other two here.

[54:44] Finally, we give some opposing information.

[54:46] This is really to understand the potential vulnerability of a measure.

[54:49] And we do see that all three have vulnerability to some potential messaging that was talking

[54:54] about how the taxes are too high, the measure could hurt businesses, and that the cost of

[55:00] living are increasing.

[55:02] We see some vulnerability for all three, reducing support for the measure back to around the

[55:07] two-thirds level for the no cap, square foot no cap version, and down to about 60%

[55:12] for the B and C version.

[55:15] We've done, as I said, you've done a lot of polling in this district.

[55:18] This is pretty similar to what you've seen in your prior polls for your revenue measures.

[55:22] I think one thing you have going for you in this district is a district that is willing

[55:26] to do the work of educating the public to the degree that you're able to and a strong

[55:31] community that's willing to pick it up when things go to the ballot.

[55:33] And so, you know, this to us, you know, you're ending in a good place even with

[55:38] a potential negative campaign against a measure.

[55:45] We do want to look a little bit at what's the difference between November and March.

[55:48] So everything I've shown you so far has been November.

[55:52] We're going to look at that March turnout scenario.

[55:54] This is a fairly standard March turnout scenario.

[55:57] Of course, there are lots of ways the March election could go.

[56:00] It could be a little bit more Democrat heavy,

[56:02] but we wanted to give a reasonably conservative estimate here.

[56:06] Generally the primaries, lower turnout elections,

[56:09] tend to be a little bit less liberal,

[56:12] a little bit less tax supportive than a general rate,

[56:15] the four-year high water mark of the presidential election.

[56:17] And so that's what we see here.

[56:20] You know, I would not couch these as significant differences

[56:23] in support between November and March.

[56:26] They are essentially statistically the same

[56:29] when you look at those two electorates.

[56:31] So, you know, one thing we wanted to come back with

[56:33] is, is there a difference between going in November and March

[56:36] on the voter receptivity side based on who will vote?

[56:39] There are lots of other reasons to think about the timing,

[56:42] but from the voter receptivity standpoint,

[56:45] in terms of who is voting,

[56:46] We don't see a significant difference between the two and finally just wanted to show you some of the past polling

[56:53] We've done the purple represents your polls that we've done for the district then the two different blues

[57:01] Represent actual measures so the paler blue is bond measures and the darker blues parcel tax measures all have been

[57:07] Successful that we're showing here back to 2014

[57:10] So one thing we wanted to point out is your your initial polling is often below where you end up on the

[57:16] On election day, you know, and I think this is a credit that the initial polls are essentially all

[57:23] Before you start your significant public information effort

[57:26] Obviously before these are all district polls. So they're before the campaign gets rolling and going

[57:31] so I think this to me speaks to the strength of this district's willingness to

[57:38] Communicate as well as the fact that you have lots of community members that pick up that mantle when you place things on the ballot

[57:44] And you can see that support grows, particularly for parcel tax measures, which have that two-thirds

[57:49] threshold to pass.

[57:50] Bond measures require just 55 percent in most cases.

[57:54] So the effort level reflects what's needed, but with the parcel taxes, you can see.

[57:59] And you've needed most of those points that you've gained.

[58:04] Quick conclusions, and I'll pass it back to Jeremy.

[58:07] We do see that, overall, a single measure that replaces both of the two existing

[58:12] measures appears to be feasible.

[58:14] We see a supermajority of Alameda voters identifying a need for additional school funding and a willingness to pay taxes for quality schools.

[58:22] We see voters continuing to value maintaining strong academic programs, high quality schools, and great teachers.

[58:28] As these ballot measures were tested, the square foot rate without a cap seems to hold the most promise, more promise than a hybrid or a flat rate structure,

[58:38] and shows the most resistance to potential opposition messaging.

[58:41] And as I said, we don't see a significant difference in support for a tax between likely

[58:46] November and likely March voters.

[58:49] With that, I'll turn it back to Jeremy to close it out.

[58:52] And then I'll be here for questions.

[58:54] I'll be quick so you can stay up here if you want to.

[58:56] It's very exciting, I know.

[58:59] So next steps, right?

[59:01] Because the point came back and showed us that a partial tax renewal is feasible

[59:06] and that there was no significant difference between the March and November electorate.

[59:12] We are recommending that we proceed towards planning for a March 5th parcel tax renewal.

[59:19] Again, we are not making a final decision tonight, but our recommendation is that we keep the process

[59:23] moving forward towards that March 5th election.

[59:27] So how do we do that?

[59:29] Our deadline to qualify for that ballot is December 8th of this year.

[59:34] So, our timeline is really going to be geared towards hitting that deadline so that we can

[59:38] make sure that you get an adopted resolution to the county in time to make it for that

[59:43] March primary election.

[59:44] So we've completed phase one, the feasibility phase, and we are now recommending that we

[59:48] step into phase two of awareness building.

[59:52] What this looks like, frankly, is what the lead up to all of your previous bond

[59:56] and parcel tax measures has looked like.

[59:58] It's information.

[1:00:00] National outreach, it's public education, non-advocacy communications, helping you as a district tell

[1:00:07] your story to the community and parents. First about how parcel tax funding is a part of the

[1:00:13] overall budget and then introducing the need to renew those sources of funding through

[1:00:19] informational communications including direct mail, online content, frequently asked questions

[1:00:24] and any other materials as needed.

[1:00:27] We also will help you develop a plan to get out to your internal stakeholder community,

[1:00:33] your teachers, parents, bargaining units, oversight committees, folks who probably know a lot

[1:00:39] about the parts of tax measures already, but nonetheless will want to have a say in

[1:00:43] this process as it unfolds.

[1:00:45] And we'll also help you develop a communication strategy to your external stakeholders,

[1:00:49] elected officials, business groups,

[1:00:52] ethnic and community leaders who maybe don't know as much

[1:00:55] about the parcel taxes, but nonetheless,

[1:00:57] will want to have a say as well as we look towards

[1:01:00] placing a measure on the ballot.

[1:01:02] Once we feel comfortable that we've been building

[1:01:05] awareness and we're getting the word out into the

[1:01:07] community, we're going to recommend that we come back

[1:01:09] and do a tracking poll to recheck in with your

[1:01:13] community to make sure that the tax structure

[1:01:16] we are pursuing is still viable and tests some final components to help you make the

[1:01:22] most informed decision in late November or early December as you vote to place a measure

[1:01:27] on the ballot.

[1:01:28] And then finally, we will move into phase three, the actual development of the measure

[1:01:33] itself, where we will help you write the key 75 word question that will be printed

[1:01:38] in all ballots, mails, all voters, will help you write the measure itself and the

[1:01:43] resolution and clear and understandable language that voters can easily digest and we will

[1:01:48] bring all of the necessary resolutions and documents in coordination with your legal

[1:01:52] counsel to you as a board to adopt those resolutions and call an election again before

[1:01:59] that December 8th deadline.

[1:02:00] And then I'm sure as you know at that point there's a bit of a passing of a baton to

[1:02:05] an independent campaign.

[1:02:06] The district cannot advocate for the passage of a measure and so that work to do the

[1:02:10] grassroots organizing, communications, and endorsement gathering must be entirely privately

[1:02:16] fundraised and independently coordinated.

[1:02:19] So we include that on the slide here, but that would not be a phase as undertaken by

[1:02:23] the district.

[1:02:24] And I think with that, both Sarah and I are happy to answer any questions you have

[1:02:29] about this information.

[1:02:31] Thank you both so much.

[1:02:35] Ms. Lonergan, I don't have any speaker slips in hand, but are there any raised

[1:02:40] hands on Zoom. Yes, I have one raised hand, Ms. Carolyn Broussard.

[1:02:50] I'm sorry for the background

[1:02:54] noise. Thank you so much for the presentation. I will admit that I am far from being an

[1:03:01] expert in having background knowledge on how personal taxes are calculated. So I did

[1:03:07] find this presentation a little bit confusing. But the most significant part that I am

[1:03:12] seeking clarity on is what it didn't seem to understand is how it is that it seems that

[1:03:21] the smaller property sizes would ultimately see an increase in Brussels tax where larger

[1:03:28] property sizes would see a decrease. I would imagine it would be the opposite. So I was

[1:03:33] a bit confused by that. That's it. Thank you.

[1:03:36] Thank you very much. We'll move on to board questions and comments.

[1:03:44] Go ahead, Ryan.

[1:03:45] Yeah, all right. A couple questions just for community clarification.

[1:03:52] The all three ballot measures are revenue neutral, which means that we're not getting any more money from the community than what we were getting before.

[1:04:01] so that means really nothing new in our funding structure would kind of change, like we're

[1:04:08] not making anything new. It's exactly the same, correct?

[1:04:13] That is correct, and we're currently tested.

[1:04:16] And then all three options because they are parcel taxes still have the senior citizen

[1:04:23] income disparity handicap kind of opt out component?

[1:04:28] That's correct. You could continue any and all exemptions you currently are offering

[1:04:32] allowable under the law. And a portion of our parcel taxes also go to our public charter

[1:04:39] schools still under this?

[1:04:43] That is the current structure. You at the time of placing a measure

[1:04:49] on the ballot can write in any components and funding sources and funding goals that

[1:04:56] you want. But currently, as currently structured, yes, both parcel taxes support the charter

[1:05:00] schools.

[1:05:01] So no change from what we've been doing in the past currently. It wasn't in the language

[1:05:06] that we tested.

[1:05:07] It wasn't in the 75 word statement. It was in the list of possible programs to fund.

[1:05:14] And then for clarity, because I know that it can be confusing, I did understand the

[1:05:20] the difference in property and the difference in money,

[1:05:26] but maybe you wanna clarify why smaller parcels

[1:05:30] would take a bigger hit when it comes

[1:05:32] to these flat tax elements?

[1:05:35] Yes, so as currently structured,

[1:05:38] we pay or Alameda homeowners and residents

[1:05:41] pay partial tax based on the square footage

[1:05:44] of their home, and oftentimes the real square footage

[1:05:48] of those homes does not equal the $1,359 rate that would be needed in order to stay revenue

[1:05:55] neutral.

[1:05:57] The reason that is the case is because there are a lot of properties that pay a rate higher

[1:06:02] than that and thus by flattening out the rate for everybody, we're going to move some

[1:06:07] properties down, i.e. the larger properties and move some properties up, i.e. the

[1:06:12] smaller properties so that everyone is uniform.

[1:06:14] So with the flat rate tax, basically someone who has a really small property paying the

[1:06:19] same amount of money that someone who has a very large property would have in the very

[1:06:24] end.

[1:06:24] There's no, it doesn't really matter how big your property is, you're just all paying

[1:06:27] the same.

[1:06:27] So therefore there would be a disparity.

[1:06:30] I did have one other question, but I have to remember what it was, so I'll opt to

[1:06:34] let you guys go.

[1:06:35] I just also want to clarify one thing, and for Ms. Broussard who asked, option

[1:06:39] Option A does not see an increase, it actually sees an increase on pretty much all homeowners.

[1:06:48] There's a decrease from what we're currently paying for option A.

[1:06:52] Under option A, every property that is smaller than 32,000 square feet, we see a lower

[1:07:00] annual tax rate.

[1:07:01] Right.

[1:07:01] So there's a distinction between A where pretty much all homes.

[1:07:06] Can you put A up on the screen so we could show it?

[1:07:09] Yeah, all, so because I agree it can be confusing and this is the third time I'm seeing the presentation.

[1:07:16] So, so option A, anyone with a property under roughly 32,000 square feet will actually see

[1:07:25] a decrease in their annual property taxes based on this.

[1:07:30] It's properties that are larger than 32,600 roughly square feet.

[1:07:35] where those people because those people have also been living under the current cap where they

[1:07:42] have not had to pay more than $7,995. It's exactly correct. So then you have B and C and to Ryan's

[1:07:51] point just to make this very clear because in order to break even every single property owner

[1:07:59] divided by $24 million would need to roughly be paying $1300 each year so I

[1:08:08] as a property owner if I'm paying $800 now if we do the flat then I'm gonna see

[1:08:14] that increase and it's not on every homeowner but it's gonna be on people

[1:08:18] below a certain square footage roughly 1700 square feet something like that

[1:08:24] where did it go? It's 23 for the flat rate. 23 for the flat rate. So yes, there are two

[1:08:31] versions where people who have smaller properties will see an increase simply because those

[1:08:38] people currently are paying less than what it would mean if every single person had to

[1:08:45] pay the same amount. That's exactly correct. Okay, so I'm hoping that Ms. Broussard, if

[1:08:50] if that's clear for her and anybody else who is equally as confused about it,

[1:08:55] because it's confusing.

[1:08:57] So hopefully that's helpful.

[1:08:59] What's not helping us is that the options are also numbered the same as what our measures are,

[1:09:03] which I think adds to our confusion.

[1:09:05] But if you could go back to option A for me, I want to just underscore the same point.

[1:09:10] And I'll be frank, any option that means that the people that have the smallest homes

[1:09:15] paying more is one that I'm going to struggle with.

[1:09:17] So, I just want to be very clear about that.

[1:09:20] This is the one that wouldn't do that.

[1:09:22] So, I just want to kind of clarify this one one more time for Ms. Broussard, anyone else

[1:09:27] out there who's asking about it.

[1:09:29] This would show a decrease for the smaller, for every single family homeowner would see

[1:09:35] a decrease with this one.

[1:09:37] So, actually, this one is square footage neutral unless you have over 32,000 square

[1:09:44] feet.

[1:09:44] Everyone else will see a decrease and anyone over 32,000 square feet will see an increase.

[1:09:50] I just want to clarify it as simply as possible.

[1:09:53] Great.

[1:09:54] Option B would actually be what Ms. Brassard was concerned with and I think others as well,

[1:10:03] which would mean that the burden of increases would go to the people with the smaller homes

[1:10:08] and people with midsize to fairly large square footage would see a decrease.

[1:10:15] And option C is

[1:10:21] a flat rate no matter what.

[1:10:23] So if you're a target or if you're somebody with a 700 square foot home,

[1:10:30] you're paying the same amount.

[1:10:32] Okay, thanks.

[1:10:37] One other question.

[1:10:39] When we do, you mentioned additional polling that we were going to do closer to December.

[1:10:44] Are we planning on doing any other polling as part of the contract?

[1:10:49] correct? Currently? Okay. Because one of the things that I would be curious about, because

[1:10:56] I am very nervous about this whole... Oh, I know what it was. The amount of years that

[1:11:02] we were proposing was not in any of the language that is still to be determined on when we

[1:11:07] would have to renew this parcel tax.

[1:11:09] So we tested a nine-year sunset.

[1:11:12] Okay.

[1:11:12] And we tested that across all three rate structures.

[1:11:15] So my nervousness in locking into a revenue neutral for nine years makes me a little nervous.

[1:11:22] And so I wondered if there's a possibility of us looking at the right now there's a nine

[1:11:30] and a half point nine and a half percent decrease with a in the amount of money that people

[1:11:39] would be paying in their taxes.

[1:11:40] And I wonder, everyone loves a decrease, but does it have to be that large?

[1:11:44] And do we test out something that's half that size in order to beef up the fact that while

[1:11:51] this is revenue neutral, the things are costing more as we go year by year from transportation

[1:11:57] to wanting to make sure that we increase and retain our teachers.

[1:12:03] So I just proposed that.

[1:12:05] But I'm really thankful for getting this information because we'll refer back to

[1:12:12] it a lot as we go through this process and it's nice and easy for the community to come

[1:12:17] and see this presentation anytime they want on our website and know that we're not hiding

[1:12:22] anything, everything's there, you see who's paying for what and you can pretty much figure

[1:12:26] out where you fall in that.

[1:12:27] I appreciate what you're naming which is that you're right, over nine years we've

[1:12:33] seen just in this last year how much more expensive things have become.

[1:12:39] So, is there like ever a process for like a COLA increase or anything like that that

[1:12:44] would go along with this so that as the cost of living goes up, the stake goes up?

[1:12:50] Or is it more safe for us just to say like we're not, no one's getting a decrease but

[1:12:58] no one's increasing and then we have that extra funding so I'm wondering because that's

[1:13:03] a really great point.

[1:13:03] So, to answer your first question, yes, you can add a cost of living adjustment to your

[1:13:09] measure that is built in, and you can tie it to a number of indexes.

[1:13:13] You can tie it to a flat percentage that is an option.

[1:13:18] We have always thought of this process in two phases for polling for this very reason.

[1:13:23] Phase one, this first poll, was all about answering the overall rate structure question,

[1:13:29] right?

[1:13:30] because even as we did it, we had three different variables,

[1:13:34] three different essentially independent focus groups

[1:13:37] that we tested.

[1:13:38] The more variables that we threw into that,

[1:13:40] the less reliable the data would be, right?

[1:13:42] So that's why we went about it this way,

[1:13:44] looking at revenue-neutral only, right?

[1:13:47] With our second poll, our hope is that

[1:13:49] the rate structure question is gonna be answered

[1:13:51] and we're gonna choose one and go forward

[1:13:53] with that one rate structure

[1:13:54] and then we can determine other variables

[1:13:57] variables and components that we want to test. As is the case here, the more variables that

[1:14:03] we tinker with, the less reliable the data is that we're going to get back, right? So

[1:14:07] for example, you could test various sunset rates, right? You could look at a nine-year

[1:14:12] or a 15-year or a five-year, right? But we would recommend that the sunset is the

[1:14:17] variable we test. We could also test the cost of living adjustment, right? A version

[1:14:21] that has it and a version that doesn't. That would be the variable we could test.

[1:14:25] Or we could test no cost of living adjustment, a set sunset, and then two different tax rates,

[1:14:31] right?

[1:14:32] So the 49-cent rate, and then 54 for the sake of argument.

[1:14:36] Again, that would be something that's decided in collaboration with district staff.

[1:14:40] But the idea here is that we use this first poll really to figure out our structure

[1:14:45] and we use our next poll to kind of figure out, okay, within that structure, what

[1:14:49] what other variables are available to us and what might be feasible or not.

[1:14:56] Ryan brought up something that, so what is the current time frame for B1?

[1:15:00] One and A, just so that the public's aware. What is it now? Seven years each. So 25 at sunsets

[1:15:07] for A, 27 at sunsets for B. So in this polling you added an additional two years then. Correct.

[1:15:17] But again, that is, that was just based on all of us working together and coming towards

[1:15:21] a number that we thought was appropriate. It doesn't lock you into any decision as

[1:15:25] a district and that would be part of the resolution that we would bring back to you

[1:15:28] in November would be a sunset of any amount of years

[1:15:33] as the district deemed appropriate.

[1:15:36] It'd be great to have a message in talking point about how

[1:15:39] the amount of money that we spend having to put this all together

[1:15:42] and do all this, and if we did extend this, that we're actually saving money

[1:15:46] by extending the amount of time that we ask for renewal.

[1:15:51] And it creates more stability, right?

[1:15:52] Yeah.

[1:15:53] More stability of programming when we can count the money for a longer period of time,

[1:15:57] which is important so yeah it's that and it's it's also campaign fatigue I mean

[1:16:03] it's like every two years right now because of the way the structure is and

[1:16:06] I think we've heard loud and clear from the public that we need to do

[1:16:09] something different so I'm appreciative of you guys thinking around with

[1:16:13] everybody to bring it forward and giving us some really great options to

[1:16:16] ponder any other I just wanted to add to the point that was made about

[1:16:21] stability over a long term I think local revenue as far out as you can

[1:16:26] do it is probably our best shot at stability in the near term five to ten years. We're

[1:16:31] starting to see an increasing amount of the revenue that we're getting being categorical

[1:16:34] or restricted, things that you can't really rely on to build long-term programming in

[1:16:39] terms of how many we're seeing kind of a return to the early 2000s and how we're getting

[1:16:43] our money packaged from the state.

[1:16:46] One thing.

[1:16:47] I think to, I'm sorry.

[1:16:48] I was going to ask, one topic that we didn't talk about that I want to make sure

[1:16:52] that we have some clarity on is that the recommendation was

[1:16:55] for March and not a November.

[1:16:58] And I wanted to point out that that's probably really smart

[1:17:01] in the case that if something were to happen negatively

[1:17:03] in March that we're able to have the time to do potentially

[1:17:06] in November.

[1:17:08] But I also want to highlight for the public

[1:17:11] are those that are possibly listening

[1:17:12] or maybe we'll listen to this later.

[1:17:14] They are three people.

[1:17:16] Yeah, that this falls within a period in which

[1:17:20] which we're very distracted as a community, that we're going to have lots of holidays and

[1:17:26] winter breaks and our ski week and all that kind of stuff that happens within schools

[1:17:31] and that we're going to really rely on a community to step up at a time in which they're probably

[1:17:37] going to be really distracted.

[1:17:39] And so it's good for us to start now telling everybody that this is the timeline and

[1:17:45] build into that versus thinking so far off for November.

[1:17:49] And I'll also say that, you know, it's not going to be alone on our ballot in March.

[1:17:56] Unlike the previous bond measure where it was the only thing that was Alameda on there,

[1:18:01] that we do have other things that are important for us as a community that we're going to

[1:18:04] be voting on at that time.

[1:18:06] So we will be able to latch onto those things in March, unlike what we've done

[1:18:10] before in the last year.

[1:18:13] Good points.

[1:18:17] All right.

[1:18:17] Yeah, this work kicks into high gear in about a month.

[1:18:23] So definitely looking forward to you guys coming back

[1:18:27] for us making some thoughtful decisions

[1:18:30] and partnering with you in all of this.

[1:18:32] And thank you very much.

[1:18:33] And Sarah, really nice to see you.

[1:18:35] Thank you.

[1:18:37] Nice to see you too, Jeremy.

[1:18:38] I'm sorry.

[1:18:38] I just know.

[1:18:39] No, actually just Sarah.

[1:18:41] That was no slide, that's right.

[1:18:42] And you see that someone was wearing an Oakland roots shirt.

[1:18:47] Sarah. So we're former soccer players. So there you go. Just a little TMI. TMI. It's June. It's the

[1:18:55] June meeting. Okay, bear with me, people. I'm really feeling it today. All right. Our next general

[1:19:02] business item number three is approval of, oh, here we go, approval of the Measure B Wood Middle

[1:19:09] School schematic design. This is an action item. Mr. Quattrochi from Quattrochi Quok Architects is here.

[1:19:16] I'm doing really good at that, is here to present this item.

[1:19:20] Good evening.

[1:19:21] Thank you for being here.

[1:19:22] Come on up.

[1:19:24] Oh, wait a minute.

[1:19:26] I'm all over the place.

[1:19:29] Mr. Kahn, you're here first.

[1:19:31] I guess you will have the honor of introducing Mr. Kahn.

[1:19:34] Thank you so much.

[1:19:35] Good evening.

[1:19:35] I did.

[1:19:36] I just want to say his name.

[1:19:40] Just a little introduction.

[1:19:41] You guys all know.

[1:19:42] Okay.

[1:19:44] Anyway, the next two items are both Measure B-related, Wood Middle School schematic design

[1:19:50] and budget, and then right after that, Elmira High School's swimming pool schematic design

[1:19:56] and budget rule, both are action items.

[1:19:58] We have team from QK, Mark Kuproki, and Joe Williams, both here, and in audience,

[1:20:04] we also have our construction manager, Ruth Boyd.

[1:20:12] I had my own warm-up act, so I needed a shark to kind of warm up the audience.

[1:20:17] Okay, good.

[1:20:18] Because that was embarrassing.

[1:20:20] Sorry.

[1:20:22] I just love hearing you say my name.

[1:20:23] Am I saying it right?

[1:20:24] You're doing it great.

[1:20:25] Okay.

[1:20:26] I'm so excited.

[1:20:27] So it's very nice to be back again.

[1:20:29] We're here, as Mr. Khan just mentioned, for two projects.

[1:20:32] I did want to introduce Joe Williams a little bit more.

[1:20:34] He is our studio lead for QKA.

[1:20:36] So he actually is the person who does all the work.

[1:20:40] I just stand up here and take credit

[1:20:41] for all of our Alameda work,

[1:20:42] but he's kind of equivalent to a project manager for us.

[1:20:45] But I wanted Joel to be here.

[1:20:46] He'll be presenting part of the presentation for Wood.

[1:20:49] So we're very excited to bring you Wood today.

[1:20:52] We'll try to keep this brief.

[1:20:53] I know there's a lot to cover.

[1:20:55] What's very exciting for us about this project,

[1:20:57] though the last two were,

[1:20:59] but this is a significant project.

[1:21:01] They're all significant,

[1:21:02] but this is a particularly significant project

[1:21:04] for Alameda Unified and the transformation we get to make.

[1:21:08] So just quickly, this is as the previous projects

[1:21:10] I've shown you based on the Measure B campaign,

[1:21:16] the renewal we did for the master plan.

[1:21:20] We had just a wonderful set of sessions,

[1:21:22] both with the design committee.

[1:21:25] We met separately with the principal.

[1:21:26] We had some smaller meetings.

[1:21:28] So what we're showing you today

[1:21:29] has really a lot of input from staff,

[1:21:32] from sort of big vision conversations

[1:21:33] to some very specific uses of spaces.

[1:21:37] We also, because of issues around traffic and easements,

[1:21:40] there was a real involvement with the city of Alameda

[1:21:42] more than we usually have on school projects

[1:21:45] because we're so intertwined on the wood campus.

[1:21:49] And then as my previous projects view,

[1:21:51] this includes a lot of engineering,

[1:21:53] our professional cost estimate, geotechnical work,

[1:21:57] surveying work, so it's a very good deep dive

[1:21:59] into what we know about wood.

[1:22:03] Okay, now I'm the one having trouble pushing buttons.

[1:22:05] There we go.

[1:22:06] This should look familiar to the board.

[1:22:08] This is the master plan that was created when we updated the master planning a couple years ago.

[1:22:13] That was the basis of Measure B.

[1:22:15] Just quickly, the premise at that time, and you'll see quickly, we're looking at approaching this differently.

[1:22:22] The main building in the middle, that's the tan color, it's a three-story building that's there now.

[1:22:27] Kind of a deep modernization of it.

[1:22:29] The purple represents enlarging the administrative office,

[1:22:32] bringing it front and center.

[1:22:33] You know, all that sort of follows your safety

[1:22:35] and security standards.

[1:22:36] Then the building on the right is the new construction,

[1:22:39] where we're putting the new gymnasium

[1:22:40] that the campus had always intended,

[1:22:42] but on top of some pretty aged and run down horrible

[1:22:45] and modular buildings.

[1:22:47] So the classrooms then replace the ones that were lost.

[1:22:50] And then to the left is the multi-use room,

[1:22:53] which was kind of a light modernization

[1:22:55] and then some site work.

[1:22:56] So that was the plan.

[1:22:57] and that's how we started this project and that's how we all proceeded as we

[1:23:01] began the meetings with staff. And I won't go through this whole list in a

[1:23:06] great deal of detail but the first five topics were things that we learned a

[1:23:10] lot about when we did your mechanical improvement projects at Wood. Just the

[1:23:14] significant challenges that that building has just from the just

[1:23:19] structurally around the building. I don't mean structural safety but just the

[1:23:21] sort of built-in things that were there. Everything from hazardous

[1:23:25] of materials to some pretty odd interior construction that had to be removed. But what we really

[1:23:31] found is that even if we did all this and we were able to get through the high cost much

[1:23:36] higher than we expected, if we did all that, we were still left with the same kind of quality

[1:23:40] of teaching spaces. These are very self-contained, very inwardly oriented, really no sense

[1:23:47] of community or collaboration, the breakout spaces, no connection whatsoever to the

[1:23:51] out of doors or to outdoor learning areas.

[1:23:54] And so it really gave us pause to think

[1:23:57] about the kind of quality of educational environment

[1:23:59] when all is said and done, have we really transformed

[1:24:03] the teaching environments?

[1:24:04] And candidly, both as my experience doing schools,

[1:24:08] but your own staff said, no, this will have new finishes,

[1:24:13] but it's not going to meet educational program needs.

[1:24:16] Added to that some significant deficiencies

[1:24:19] around your traffic.

[1:24:20] I mean, you're well aware of the issues, both from just logistics but also, frankly, student

[1:24:26] safety.

[1:24:27] Lay it on top of that will be some changes the city's making that we're not able to

[1:24:31] do anything about in the current configuration.

[1:24:34] The front door that school has on grand is the front door when all of a sudden done

[1:24:38] based on the master plan.

[1:24:40] So kind of this last bullet point is really that it gives us a chance to, should we

[1:24:45] look at this differently?

[1:24:46] And so I'm going to show you the last diagram.

[1:24:49] We did several diagram studies of different ways to approaches with the staff.

[1:24:53] And again, they were very involved, very interactive, and a lot of what we're about to show you came from that.

[1:24:58] And I'm going to turn this over to Joel after this.

[1:25:00] So this is a diagram just like the diagram I showed you before.

[1:25:04] It's not a design. It really begins to think about how do we rethink this campus?

[1:25:08] The fundamental part of that is what if we didn't remodel?

[1:25:11] What if we didn't keep all those inherent issues?

[1:25:14] And what if we replaced?

[1:25:15] and how could we make this campus better

[1:25:17] and how do we deal with the finances of that?

[1:25:19] So I'll let Joel have the fun part describing that,

[1:25:22] but I did want to take a moment to recognize,

[1:25:24] so on the left is Grant, on the top of the page is Richard Park,

[1:25:28] is we also recognize, and we're purposely showing in the stadium,

[1:25:30] we are not here to prove the stadium today,

[1:25:32] but it is a project that's planned

[1:25:34] and it has this deep parking lot that goes deep into the site,

[1:25:37] it's always been part of that plan.

[1:25:39] It was just so apparent to us,

[1:25:40] why not begin to connect those dots from Grant

[1:25:43] to that parking lot up to Otis, and completely transform the way we enter and use the campus

[1:25:48] if we were just not in the position of having to remodel that old building.

[1:25:53] So that's the diagram that begin to stick, and I'm going to let Joel have the fun part

[1:25:58] and tell you how we're going to do it.

[1:26:01] Take it away.

[1:26:02] Thank you, Mark.

[1:26:03] Thank you, members of the board.

[1:26:05] I do think that this is the fun part.

[1:26:06] It's always fun to talk about the possibilities on a campus, and I think the possibilities

[1:26:11] these are pretty amazing for wood middle school.

[1:26:13] What you're seeing on the screen now is an overview

[1:26:15] that shows the entire block.

[1:26:17] Mark referenced Rittler Park in the upper left.

[1:26:20] You also see the existing alum site grayed out

[1:26:23] on the upper right part of the block.

[1:26:26] This is where the temporary campus is expected to go

[1:26:28] for both wood middle school

[1:26:29] and the Otis modernization projects.

[1:26:32] And it's the long term site of the future

[1:26:34] Alameda High School Athletic Complex.

[1:26:37] And the lower left of the block is really the academic core of the Wood Mill School campus.

[1:26:46] And I want to talk a bit about just how the new proposed design would be structured in

[1:26:52] terms of circulation on the campus.

[1:26:54] The main entry point would be a new curb cut off of grand.

[1:26:58] It leads us to a new admin library building that forms the front door of this new revitalized

[1:27:04] campus.

[1:27:05] And that relates to a new drop-off lane that is immediately off of that access road.

[1:27:14] That access road continues through that parking lot and then would exit out onto Otis.

[1:27:21] And we imagine that this would be a one-way road during school times.

[1:27:25] This is one of the things that still needs to be studied and is being studied with traffic

[1:27:28] engineers that the district has engaged with and in coordination with the city.

[1:27:32] So there's a lot of questions still to be answered around how you enter and exit left turns right turns timing of different things

[1:27:39] We don't know all of those answers yet, and we won't for a little while still

[1:27:45] The other things that this change really the campus drive and new drop-off new front door of the campus allow us to do is to close

[1:27:52] Off the existing drop-off and to coordinate with the plans that the city has for a new bike lane

[1:27:58] That runs the length of grand on the school side of the block

[1:28:01] Park. Closing off that drop-off allows us to create a much nicer landscape buffer as

[1:28:06] well as providing for bicycle parking that you'll see in a minute here.

[1:28:14] And then just

[1:28:15] another reference to the temporary campus and future stadium site.

[1:28:19] One of the other things that we're in conversations with the city about is the fact that we

[1:28:24] understand that there are some boundary issues between these properties. The property

[1:28:30] line for the park is quite convoluted. And you see two different boundaries here represented

[1:28:35] in yellow and blue. The yellow line is something that is an existing issue that overlaps with

[1:28:41] the school at Wood. And it also will be impacting in the proposed design, the placement

[1:28:49] of the new Admin Library Building. So this is not a new issue. It's something that's

[1:28:52] been known, but it's now time to deal with it. And the district is working with

[1:28:57] the city to develop the easements to define the legal language to allow for the school

[1:29:03] district to continue to use the property the way it is currently used as well as to expand

[1:29:08] the use for the area that will be in the access road and parking lot.

[1:29:18] Zooming in a little bit closer now, this is the same plan but just focused on the

[1:29:23] academic core of the campus.

[1:29:29] Maybe the batteries are getting tired.

[1:29:32] We have, again, the main entry from Grand into the new campus drive and drop-off zone.

[1:29:39] This is where primarily the vehicular access for the campus will be.

[1:29:44] We also imagine a secondary entry point that could be aligned with a crosswalk that is

[1:29:50] not currently in the city's plans, but we're already in conversations with them

[1:29:53] about adding, that would align with the secondary access point into the campus where

[1:29:58] for pedestrians and bikes would be fine.

[1:30:00] And this is where I mentioned the area where the existing drop-off currently is could be a landscape buffer.

[1:30:08] And you can see a pretty extensive bicycle parking area there that could be secured.

[1:30:15] Uh-oh.

[1:30:15] Was that me?

[1:30:17] No.

[1:30:17] Okay.

[1:30:20] There's also a need to upgrade the way the extensive needs students are able to be dropped off and picked up.

[1:30:27] Wood Middle School has one of the larger special needs programs in the district.

[1:30:32] And we understand that there are a number of extensive needs students that need better access to their classrooms.

[1:30:38] So the way we're placing their classrooms adjacent to what could be a dedicated drop off zone is something that we can talk a little bit more about as we get to the floor plans.

[1:30:47] The last arrow that you see here, the staff parking is expected to stay in the same location.

[1:30:54] that parking lot would be upgraded, new striping, new accessibility standards, and it also has

[1:30:59] an adjacency to where the staff lounge would be located in that building that I'll talk

[1:31:03] about when we get to that floor plan. I also pushed a button multiple times to get

[1:31:09] to the new drop-off zone and the new admin library. That's creating a new entry sequence

[1:31:17] for students arriving. That's represented by that orange arrow moving down the

[1:31:21] And it's really framed by that new admin library area as well as the existing multi-use building.

[1:31:28] And it has a backdrop of a new steam lab that's part of the academic building that we're designing.

[1:31:33] I think what you'll see in one of the conceptual renderings that we have especially is that that steam lab is in a really special place on the campus.

[1:31:41] It's kind of the heart of the campus and it frames some of the outdoor space that we're able to create with this new scheme.

[1:31:47] As Mark mentioned, that's really been missing on the campus in its current configuration.

[1:31:52] And so we're using that steam lab to really anchor a revitalized outdoor learning environment.

[1:31:59] The new gymnasium is very similar to what was in the master plan originally, just in

[1:32:03] a different location on the site.

[1:32:05] And then the rest of the academic classrooms are arrayed around that steam lab, all of

[1:32:10] which frame these outdoor environments.

[1:32:12] So you have a new academic quad, which is the larger of the outdoor spaces on

[1:32:17] On the right-hand side, on the left-hand side of the steam lab, there's a smaller courtyard

[1:32:21] that can have some breakout space for that maker space as well as a dedicated yard for

[1:32:27] the extensive needs students immediately adjacent to their classrooms.

[1:32:31] Because of the new configuration of the campus, we also need to replace the black

[1:32:35] top play area.

[1:32:36] So that's located to the south of the classroom building, while the garden and

[1:32:41] existing field are expected to remain as is.

[1:32:48] Looking at the floor plans for the buildings now,

[1:32:51] you can see these plans overlaid onto that site diagram.

[1:32:55] What you can't see particularly well here is how the perimeter fencing is expected to fit into the campus.

[1:33:01] That's one of the elements of the safety and security plan that has been adopted.

[1:33:05] And it's a major part of how we control access when classes are in session.

[1:33:11] In the morning, when students are dropped off, they enter the gates.

[1:33:14] They're standing wide open.

[1:33:15] they can flow into the campus from these different access points.

[1:33:18] Once school is in session, then all of those gates can be closed and access is controlled

[1:33:22] through the secure vestibule, which is the lobby of the admin library building.

[1:33:26] That's the tan colored box there in the upper left of that building.

[1:33:31] All the pink spaces are really the support space for the office staff.

[1:33:35] They include offices, storage rooms, conference rooms, things like that.

[1:33:39] And then the blue part of the plan, I know it's hard to read the names on

[1:33:44] those. That's the library. And so we'll be continuing to have conversations with the

[1:33:49] librarian and other members of the teaching staff to make sure that we're fitting out

[1:33:55] these spaces as they need to be. Moving over to the new gymnasium building, we're really

[1:34:01] designing the access to this building around two different population groups. Starting

[1:34:05] with the students, because they'll be coming from the academic part of the campus,

[1:34:10] this with the perimeter fencing, the access point for students is really going to be on

[1:34:14] that side door. There's a pair of doors kind of in the middle of the left side of the building

[1:34:19] that opens into an L-shaped corridor. And that's most likely going to be the area where

[1:34:23] students enter and exit from this building. Whereas the lobby is oriented more towards

[1:34:29] that new parking lot that extends up off the page as well as towards the future

[1:34:33] side of that Alameda High School Stadium. So we imagine there's some synergy between

[1:34:37] this new gymnasium and the stadium, as well as the likelihood that this building will be

[1:34:42] used after hours, on weekends, things like that. And so there needs to be a lobby with

[1:34:46] public restrooms and things like that that are oriented towards that use, as well as

[1:34:50] for the needs of the students. The blue box is a PE classroom and also can be outfitted

[1:34:57] as a dance classroom, as we've been discussing with the site committee. And then, of course,

[1:35:01] the largest space in a gymnasium is the court space itself. So this is sized

[1:35:05] for a middle school basketball court that's 50 feet wide by 84 feet long and it will end

[1:35:12] up being a multi-sport court.

[1:35:13] It'll have striping for volleyball, badminton, maybe pickleball.

[1:35:17] We haven't figured all of that out yet, as well as having retractable bleachers on

[1:35:22] one side.

[1:35:25] Moving down to the academic building, I think it's worth reiterating the fact

[1:35:30] that this new scheme allows us to create a much more permeable barrier between the

[1:35:34] indoor and outdoor learning environments.

[1:35:37] The quality of the outdoor space is something that the teachers really focused on in some

[1:35:42] of our early meetings.

[1:35:43] The fact that they want more green space, they want to be able to have places to take

[1:35:46] their students outside and not just be in a sea of asphalt.

[1:35:50] And we think that this scheme really accommodates that desire.

[1:35:54] The academic spaces, the courtyard is really anchored by that steam lab in the middle

[1:35:58] of the building.

[1:35:59] You can see that we're designing a grand stair on one side of it that has some

[1:36:04] terraces to spill out and allow seating overlooking the quad area. We're also looking

[1:36:08] at some multiple levels of overlook, which you'll see on the second floor. This is a

[1:36:14] two-story classroom building. I also mentioned that the staff parking is on the lower left

[1:36:20] and the staff workroom and lounge is in the lower left part of this building. There's

[1:36:25] a breezeway that goes right next to it. So the primary staff entry point for the

[1:36:29] teachers that are working in these classrooms will be to park their vehicles, enter

[1:36:33] the campus through that breezeway. They can easily pop into the workroom or the lounge,

[1:36:38] grab a cup of coffee, make some copies, and then head to their classrooms.

[1:36:43] The other spaces in this building starting on the left side are the intensive needs classrooms.

[1:36:47] There's a pair of those oversized classrooms. They need to be larger to make space for

[1:36:51] the other program elements like the sensory rooms, the private toilet rooms, the therapy

[1:36:56] space, the flex area in between where they'll be learning how to make meals for

[1:37:01] themselves and things like that. And that is immediately adjacent to the private extensive

[1:37:06] needs yard that's on the right-hand side of that building, a fenced-in secure area for

[1:37:11] those students. Moving across the building left to right, you can see three offices

[1:37:17] that are for other resource spaces. The blue boxes are general ed classrooms.

[1:37:23] The green are science labs. The science labs stack on both floors, so you've got

[1:37:27] two science labs with a prep space in between.

[1:37:30] And then the brown box are the student toilet rooms.

[1:37:34] And this is worth taking a moment

[1:37:36] to dig a little bit deeper.

[1:37:38] Because we've had a number of conversations

[1:37:40] at the district level and with the site committee,

[1:37:42] with the principal and teachers,

[1:37:44] about what the right configuration

[1:37:45] of toilet rooms would be.

[1:37:48] There's a lot of trends from our experience

[1:37:51] working with other districts,

[1:37:52] moving in the direction of gender neutral

[1:37:54] multi-stall toilet facilities.

[1:37:56] But there isn't necessarily a best practice at this point.

[1:38:00] It's a difficult proposition to find the right balance between privacy and supervision.

[1:38:06] And so that's the nature of the conversations that we've been having with the principal especially

[1:38:10] and the other teachers that make up the site committee.

[1:38:13] We were initially showing a plan that had a multi-stall gender neutral toilet,

[1:38:18] such as what you're seeing now on one floor

[1:38:20] and a more traditional gender-specific toilet facility on the second floor.

[1:38:26] And the principal and others on the site committee felt quite strongly that this gender-neutral facility would be much preferred from a supervision standpoint.

[1:38:35] So that's what we're showing here for the purposes of the approval tonight.

[1:38:38] But this conversation is by no means over.

[1:38:41] And as we continue to move through the design, we'll continue to have the conversation and refine the plan as we go forward.

[1:38:47] What we found is that we can make the configuration work in the same amount of space.

[1:38:50] So, it's with a similar cost, so it really becomes a question of what's the right answer

[1:38:57] and how can we make it best work for the needs of the students.

[1:39:01] Second floor is very similar to the first.

[1:39:05] Other than the special needs classrooms are only on the ground floor, so you have more

[1:39:09] general ed classrooms working around the building with the science labs and prep

[1:39:14] space in the middle stacking for the efficiency of those utilities.

[1:39:19] And then here you can also see that there's a roof terrace proposed above the steam lab.

[1:39:24] And above that is a solar canopy that you'll see especially in the renderings that we have

[1:39:29] provided. This outdoor balcony area is a great opportunity for some of that outdoor breakout

[1:39:35] space, especially for the second floor classrooms. They don't have immediate access to the

[1:39:40] courtyards down below without going down the stairs. So having the opportunity to

[1:39:44] to take a group or even a full class out onto that balcony, I'm imagining science teachers

[1:39:50] doing the egg drop experiment and going out on the balcony and throwing the experiments

[1:39:54] down onto the patio below with everybody standing around and cheering. I think that's

[1:39:58] a really exciting part of how this can enliven the curriculum.

[1:40:04] Quickly we have four conceptual renderings that we want to talk about. Please don't

[1:40:10] get too hung up on any of the images or the colors or materials that you're seeing.

[1:40:15] These are very preliminary, even though they look polished and finished, they're not.

[1:40:21] But they talk about the quality of space that we're trying to achieve through this project.

[1:40:26] This is an example of what the experience would be like as a student arriving in the

[1:40:30] morning.

[1:40:30] You're seeing the gate standing wide open, the admin entry is on your left, and you

[1:40:34] see that steam lab with the canopy in the background there as you're walking

[1:40:38] walking down the entry promenade. And then as you're moving into that academic

[1:40:42] quad space, all of the different varieties of spaces that are possible. Part of this

[1:40:47] is activated with different furniture solutions where you can have movable chairs that can

[1:40:51] be out on the turf area. You can see the picnic tables with umbrellas over on the

[1:40:57] paving. You've got seat walls. You've got tree wells. A lot of different opportunities

[1:41:03] for students to kind of activate in their own way as well as structured breakouts

[1:41:07] from the classrooms.

[1:41:09] And then you can see the grand stair there with the solar canopy above, which we think

[1:41:13] is a great opportunity to form a key learning opportunity for the students about how the

[1:41:20] environment works, you know, actually seeing those solar panels and having a way to measure

[1:41:24] the production that's coming from those panels in some way that's visible to the students

[1:41:28] on that patio.

[1:41:30] And then this is the view from that patio, from that roof terrace, looking down

[1:41:34] on that quad area.

[1:41:35] Again, it would have flexible furniture and opportunity for breakouts in a really special

[1:41:41] way.

[1:41:43] And lastly, we have a view of the gymnasium.

[1:41:46] We chose to have this rendered view be set in the twilight, partly because the translucent

[1:41:52] panels, which work so great at daylighting the gym space while controlling the glare

[1:41:58] and the thermal gain from the sun beating into that area

[1:42:01] also can serve as a great way to illuminate the outdoor

[1:42:07] environment when it's evening like this.

[1:42:10] It kind of creates a beacon effect.

[1:42:11] The building becomes a lantern that draws people to it.

[1:42:14] And this is the building on the campus that has the

[1:42:16] greatest likelihood of actually being used after hours.

[1:42:19] And so that it kind of does double duty for us.

[1:42:22] So I think with that, that's kind of the fun part

[1:42:24] of the presentation.

[1:42:25] and I'm going to turn the floor back over to Mark

[1:42:28] to talk about more of the necessary,

[1:42:30] but maybe less fun stuff.

[1:42:34] Let the record show that Joe got to show the new buildings,

[1:42:37] and I get to show the portables.

[1:42:39] But unequally important,

[1:42:40] I think Joe did a marvelous job describing the campus.

[1:42:44] We're interested to hear the board's thoughts,

[1:42:46] but we also recognize this is a multi-year project.

[1:42:49] And so the creation of a temporary campus

[1:42:51] where students will spend a good deal of their time,

[1:42:55] It was important that we find the right way to create that campus.

[1:42:58] So this is just a drawing of what the LUM school would look like after the building is demolished.

[1:43:04] There's a fair amount of site preparation we need to do to provide those stable soils that will then allow us to place all of these portable buildings.

[1:43:12] They will be here for the lifetime of not just the wood school, but also for the Otis Elementary School.

[1:43:16] It's a really good use of a temporary campus for multiple schools.

[1:43:20] Without going into excruciating detail, Otis Drive is on the top.

[1:43:24] The existing drop-off would remain.

[1:43:26] The big box in the middle represents the administration, the one to the right is library.

[1:43:30] And then there's just the whole collection of other classrooms.

[1:43:33] Some are more larger because they're, whether they're extensive needs

[1:43:36] or future kindergarten classrooms for Otis, PE classrooms in science,

[1:43:40] and then the regular 960 square foot standard size classrooms.

[1:43:45] Lastly, the sort of smaller rectangular buildings would be the variety of toilet buildings.

[1:43:50] And then you can see there's still a fair amount of outdoor space.

[1:43:53] Robbie Ling and I were talking about the importance of, you know, this is where the portables go,

[1:43:57] but we want to make this a campus also that will have gathering areas.

[1:44:00] There will be some landscaping and other things to give it a sense of relief.

[1:44:04] Again, because students will spend so much time there.

[1:44:07] So we'll be coming back to the board with the approval for the construction contract,

[1:44:11] But in this approval, we're hoping to also get your approval for this layout.

[1:44:14] I neglected to mention we had meetings with the principals at both schools.

[1:44:18] We met up with them a couple of times.

[1:44:20] So they gave us a lot of input, sort of the best way we could lay this building out for them.

[1:44:26] So from this, I'm going to go to the budget and schedule,

[1:44:28] and I'm going to turn the first slide over to Shark.

[1:44:32] Thanks, Mark.

[1:44:32] So very quickly, this is a good example of a multi-funded project,

[1:44:36] how we are stitching various funding sources to get to our $80.8 million mark, bulk of

[1:44:42] the funding coming from Measure B, $62.2 million. Then we also have Measure I funds

[1:44:49] which were allocated to Wood School that we have not used. If you notice, we have

[1:44:53] put a slash there, slash developer fee. Quite a bit of develop, presidential development

[1:44:57] is going on in wood school boundary on which

[1:45:00] The district will collect developer fees all the way going into 2027.

[1:45:05] So this is one resource which we'll balance. If we get more in developer fees, then we'll

[1:45:09] use less of a measure, aye. And if there are any savings, we'll bring back those savings

[1:45:14] to the board for further decisions. Part of the funding is coming from Elmira High

[1:45:19] Athletic Project, especially the roadways, and then $5.1 million in state funding,

[1:45:24] which we will initially get an IOU and cash would probably come in about four to five year

[1:45:29] times.

[1:45:33] Did you say four to five years time?

[1:45:36] Thank you.

[1:45:36] There.

[1:45:38] And then fortunately, I just repeated shark's slide of our dollar amount of $80.8 million.

[1:45:43] We finished our professional cost estimate.

[1:45:45] We've worked with our engineers and the project is coming in for all the things we showed

[1:45:50] you from the new access roads, the site work, the new buildings, the demolition

[1:45:54] of the old at the 80.8, so we're highly confident that we can deliver the project we just delivered

[1:46:00] just showed you within the budget that we have.

[1:46:03] Quickly on the schedule, we're going to start the demolition in the near future working

[1:46:07] with both Robbie, Pedro, and Ruth on the demolition of Wood School and right on the

[1:46:13] heels that will be the temporary campus completed in time for teachers to move from Wood so

[1:46:18] that we can begin the construction work at Wood.

[1:46:20] The work would be in fall of 24 through spring of 26 for the new campus.

[1:46:26] That's all the new buildings and the site development.

[1:46:29] But the access road and drop off because it has its own timeline working with the city and the secret process.

[1:46:35] It'll be done in time just as the campus is, but it will start at a slightly later time construction.

[1:46:42] So I know that was a lot.

[1:46:44] and we oh I'm sorry I forgot my last slide just that we're hoping for today

[1:46:49] that's approval from the board both for schematic design for wood middle of

[1:46:53] course the roadways we just described the temporary campus for alum we're

[1:46:57] hoping for approval today so I know this was a lot I'm certainly glad to take

[1:47:01] comments or questions from the board thank you I don't have any speaker slips

[1:47:08] in hand this one again but are there any hands raised on zoom yes we have one

[1:47:13] hand raised. I'm Ms. Carolyn Broussard.

[1:47:17] Okay, thank you.

[1:47:24] Hi, can everybody hear me? We can.

[1:47:26] Thank you so much. Thank you so much for this presentation. I really appreciate it. I want to

[1:47:31] raise an issue that exists today. The extensive support needs class that currently exists at

[1:47:39] Wood has students that elope from campus and there's a safety issue that currently exists

[1:47:47] because of the lack of perimeter fencing,

[1:47:49] that there really is very little barrier

[1:47:52] that keeps students who are allowed

[1:47:54] from running out onto Grand Avenue.

[1:47:57] This is a situation that really needs to be addressed now.

[1:47:59] It can't really wait for the new plan.

[1:48:02] I think I have to step in because this isn't,

[1:48:05] we're talking about the future decisions right now.

[1:48:09] I'm getting to that.

[1:48:10] I'm getting to that.

[1:48:11] I'm getting to that.

[1:48:13] It needs to be addressed now

[1:48:14] as well as in the future plans.

[1:48:16] So I noticed in one of the schematics that the extensive support needs class was at the front of the school that was right next to Grand Avenue.

[1:48:23] And there wasn't a lot of description about what the perimeter fencing and security would be to make sure that students who alone couldn't just run out onto Grand Avenue.

[1:48:32] So I'm hoping that not only will it be addressed now, but it will be addressed in the future plans.

[1:48:38] My other comments have to do with, I greatly appreciate how much engagement there's been

[1:48:45] with principals and staff at Wood about the design plans, but I didn't hear anything around

[1:48:50] engagement with families or students, so I'd love to see an opportunity for that to happen.

[1:48:56] The students are the ultimate beneficiaries of the utilization of the site, so it would

[1:49:00] be really great to have their input in what is being designed.

[1:49:04] And lastly, you mentioned, and I know you all will do traffic studies with respect to

[1:49:09] the new drop-off lane, but I can kind of already see the potential for significant bottleneck

[1:49:14] with a one-way drop-off lane that exits onto Otis.

[1:49:19] So I would just say, again, I appreciate that there will be traffic studies done.

[1:49:25] There's currently where the LUM parking lot is.

[1:49:28] is there are some side streets that might be better options for where that drop-off

[1:49:33] lane could empty out. That provides two ways to exit. One leads you to Otis, but there's

[1:49:38] another way that leads you to a side street that runs off to, I think it's Whitehall.

[1:49:44] So just an opportunity to keep traffic flowing to avoid that potential bottleneck. Thank

[1:49:49] you so much.

[1:49:50] Thank you, Ms. Persard. Any comments and questions from the board?

[1:49:55] I have a couple.

[1:49:57] First one, what's the size of the building?

[1:49:59] How many students?

[1:50:00] It's going to be the full capacity for this building.

[1:50:05] Yeah, the current enrollment is about 600 students,

[1:50:07] and we're providing a functional capacity of about 675.

[1:50:12] So we're anticipating the possibility of growth

[1:50:14] with the facility that we're designing.

[1:50:17] So I'm really concerned about that,

[1:50:19] because 675 is pretty small anyway.

[1:50:22] Often middle schools can be much larger than that,

[1:50:24] and I worry that we'll get to a time when we have not enough space and we're putting

[1:50:30] $80 million into a building that can't grow much more than it did for a school that can't

[1:50:35] grow much more than it is currently. So can you talk to us a little bit about the options

[1:50:39] around that?

[1:50:41] So we did have conversations with the district about their demographics and candidly there

[1:50:47] was no indication of growth beyond really where they are today. And so our plan was

[1:50:53] providing the additional growth that Joel just mentioned.

[1:50:56] So up to this point, we had not heard

[1:50:58] that there was any thoughts about,

[1:51:01] there's certainly nothing demographically

[1:51:02] that showed growth beyond what you currently have.

[1:51:04] Yeah, so I used to do these kinds of,

[1:51:06] this kind of work in Oakland Unified School District,

[1:51:08] and I've been a part of building many a building

[1:51:10] that then later we've been like, oops,

[1:51:13] suddenly we want to change.

[1:51:15] We want to be able to have it be a six,

[1:51:17] 12, 6, 8 instead of a, you know, or K8 instead of a K5 or we want to be able to have some

[1:51:26] more flexibility.

[1:51:27] So for me I'm highly concerned about having a building and doing $80 million for something

[1:51:33] that doesn't have a lot of growth.

[1:51:36] So if growth happens, the district will collect developer fees and I think those

[1:51:43] developer fees you'd be used to provide additional classrooms that the new development is generating.

[1:51:51] The second reality about this is 80 million is really the upper limit for this project.

[1:52:01] We have put together five different funding sources to get to this point.

[1:52:06] There is just literally no room in this budget to add any additional space at this time

[1:52:13] The cost per square footage is close to

[1:52:16] $1000 so

[1:52:18] Even adding one extra classroom would be close to

[1:52:23] Million dollars. Yeah, I mean this is my concern though

[1:52:26] Right so because if we don't plan ahead now then you know in a few years

[1:52:32] We're going to be back and be like now

[1:52:33] Now we need more money because we need to, again, this is my professional experience,

[1:52:37] 15 years of working with schools, throwing millions of dollars into buildings that then

[1:52:42] suddenly aren't working.

[1:52:44] So are there any ways to add flexibilities, places where we can add on?

[1:52:49] Do we know where the extra classrooms could go if we need to add them later?

[1:52:54] We have thought about that.

[1:52:55] There is the opportunities for when the stadiums built and the fields are established,

[1:53:01] there is the opportunity for us to add additional classrooms, permanent classrooms, if that was

[1:53:06] so desired.

[1:53:07] How many would be able to be fit there?

[1:53:10] As a two-story building, six to eight classrooms could easily be added, probably more.

[1:53:15] By probably more.

[1:53:16] What do you mean by that?

[1:53:17] I'm sorry.

[1:53:18] I haven't studied it beyond that.

[1:53:19] I mean, up until this moment, there's been no indication of growth, but we always

[1:53:24] think about what would happen if we had to add some more classrooms, but never

[1:53:27] imagining more than six or eight, so I can't say I've studied it beyond that.

[1:53:30] So I guess a process invitation next time would be to come to the board earlier because you're asking us to approve

[1:53:36] Something tonight with a class size. This is the first time I've heard the number

[1:53:41] And then maybe I haven't been paying attention

[1:53:44] But I'm concerned because again, I've just it's

[1:53:48] It's problematic to me to only have it be basically the same size it is currently

[1:53:53] Because that number that we're saying it could grow to isn't actually a number that would fit within a school configuration

[1:54:00] Right, so 79 extra students or whatever the number

[1:54:04] is that you're saying wouldn't actually fit

[1:54:06] if we were adding extra kids

[1:54:07] because classes and grade configurations

[1:54:11] don't grow in that number.

[1:54:12] So at minimum, we'd need to be able

[1:54:14] to have capacity for say 96, right?

[1:54:17] So that's 32 kids per grade

[1:54:19] because that's how they matriculate up

[1:54:21] for three grade levels.

[1:54:22] So right now we can't actually add more kids

[1:54:26] than what we currently serve

[1:54:27] because we won't have any space for them, so that's my concern with that.

[1:54:33] My second one is around safety, so I think to Ms. Brassard's point, it is a very unsafe

[1:54:40] space now, and I'm wondering how we're going to keep kids safe and traffic flowing during

[1:54:48] construction.

[1:54:50] I know there's sequel concerns around where we have inlets and outlets and all of that,

[1:54:54] and I'm not going to be in support of driving traffic through neighborhoods, so I'm not going

[1:55:00] to go there.

[1:55:01] But I am concerned about how we keep kids safe during construction and keep kids safe

[1:55:07] right now while we're here.

[1:55:10] And we share that same concern during construction.

[1:55:13] The beauty of creating a temporary campus is we can completely separate the traffic.

[1:55:17] So the entrance to the temporary campus is directly off of Otis.

[1:55:21] The entrance for the contractors during construction is off of grand and so the those two traffics don't cross

[1:55:26] We won't have the students on the same site as the as the construction

[1:55:31] There there will be some use of the multi-use room

[1:55:34] But they won't end up going through the construction site to do that

[1:55:36] I mean if you hung out at the big drop-off and pick up there that

[1:55:42] Zagging everywhere we have cars everywhere. I mean it's a fright

[1:55:45] I mean I've spent three years or two years dropping and that but drop-off won't be available during construction

[1:55:50] because that will be all part of the contractor's staging and construction areas.

[1:55:54] So the drop-off on grand won't be used.

[1:55:57] The drop-off where LUM was, which will become the drop-off of the temporary campus off of

[1:56:02] Otis, will become the drop-off for the temporary wood school.

[1:56:05] Okay.

[1:56:06] Thanks.

[1:56:07] And regarding the previous comment about extensive needs, we share that concern.

[1:56:11] And there is the path of travel to get into the extensive need classrooms is, as Joel

[1:56:15] pointed out, there's a courtyard and a fenced-in area specifically for the extensive

[1:56:19] and these students, because our experience with other schools is exactly the same as the parents.

[1:56:24] So there will be a fence corralling the students, so they're staying within their own area,

[1:56:29] the ability to control their coming and going.

[1:56:32] Thank you.

[1:56:33] Thank you for being thoughtful about that.

[1:56:35] Go ahead.

[1:56:37] Just to thank you, Vice President Sweet.

[1:56:40] Your questions helped generate additional thoughts on my part.

[1:56:44] So, we went from a remodel or a renovation of the existing campus to now demolishing

[1:56:55] it and then coming up with something from scratch.

[1:56:58] So at what point did we, at what point, I mean, did we actually have that, you know,

[1:57:05] thorough that we're going to drop the remodeling?

[1:57:09] because I do remember there's been a lot of conversations regarding the

[1:57:14] Allian High School pool that's one thing that I know that we've had several

[1:57:17] meetings on so I'm just trying to recollect when was you know at what

[1:57:24] point you know did we actually come to an idea that other than tonight where

[1:57:30] we show that there's this was what we wanted to do and now we're at this

[1:57:34] new thing.

[1:57:38] From my perspective, this is my first time sharing this with you. I don't

[1:57:42] know if Mr. Kahn has shared that previously, but this has been part of the ongoing design

[1:57:47] process with the design committee, which are both parents and teachers and district administration.

[1:57:53] So there's been quite a process we went through looking at, as I mentioned, quite a number

[1:57:57] of diagrams of remodeling versus new construction. But I personally have not presented this

[1:58:03] to the board until tonight.

[1:58:04] Okay, and I just wanted that clarification

[1:58:06] because I think to the vice president's suede's comment,

[1:58:10] it's just, I just remembered that when we were talking

[1:58:12] about the swimming pool, that subject

[1:58:14] was quite talked thoroughly as we had

[1:58:17] with the Kauffman auditorium.

[1:58:20] And I'm trying to go back to my own memory

[1:58:22] and I don't think I missed that many meetings

[1:58:24] as to when was it that we've had such a,

[1:58:28] I always, I mean, I just can't,

[1:58:31] You know, this is something for me I thought was kind of new,

[1:58:34] you know, that this is a new campus more or less

[1:58:38] versus, you know, our renovating existing, you know,

[1:58:43] building, that's it.

[1:58:46] Well, I was gonna say that I know that when we've talked

[1:58:48] about Measure 8, Measure I funds

[1:58:51] and the amount of money that was given

[1:58:53] to Wood under Measure I,

[1:58:54] that when you started looking at that amount of money,

[1:58:57] what really needed to happen at that campus,

[1:58:59] You just knew that you couldn't do that because it was going to take such extensive work from

[1:59:04] the outside structures that were built to the hazardous materials.

[1:59:09] All those things were discovered when you were doing Measure IF, I'm not mistaking.

[1:59:14] So that's why we kind of paused spending that money until we could secure more because

[1:59:19] we knew that there was going to be extensive.

[1:59:21] I wouldn't say that that's a surprise.

[1:59:23] I would say that the idea of there's nothing really salvageable, it's more cost

[1:59:28] most effective to start over than it is to run away.

[1:59:31] That is correct.

[1:59:32] So once we got within five million of the modernization project, got within five million

[1:59:37] of new construction, that's when we started looking at new construction instead of modernizing

[1:59:43] the existing building.

[1:59:44] Do we modernize the whole thing for 75 million for which you get the same building?

[1:59:48] Or do we put another five million dollars in and get a brand new structure?

[1:59:53] And that thing came up at the very first, I think we had about 12 meetings at Wood

[1:59:57] school, the very first meeting where we act

[2:00:00] Actually we're not ready to propose new construction. The direction from Woodstaff was, can you demolish

[2:00:07] this and give us a brand new building? We didn't agree on that right then and there because

[2:00:11] we wanted to do our due diligence on the back end, which we did. And I think by the third

[2:00:16] meeting, we said, okay, based on what you folks have shared with us in terms of your

[2:00:21] educational requirements, we can modernize this building or we can give you this base

[2:00:27] in the form of a new building.

[2:00:30] So that's how it is.

[2:00:31] You clarified when you brought that information to us, though,

[2:00:33] or is this the first time we're hearing of it tonight?

[2:00:37] So the board publicly is hearing for the first time,

[2:00:41] but this has been shared with the board

[2:00:43] in about six different memos going back five or six months.

[2:00:47] With a number of students served in those memos?

[2:00:51] As far as I recall, great details are provided.

[2:00:54] I may not have touched the exact number of students that we were serving, but we are

[2:00:58] sticking to the master plan that was approved by the board in 2014 and then again in 2022

[2:01:05] and there was no discussion to expand that school in the master plan.

[2:01:09] I think especially also, you know, we just had that entire process of discontinuing

[2:01:18] grade 6 to 8 at Bay Farm because we had too many schools because our population trends

[2:01:23] are showing that they're decreasing and there has been absolutely nothing to

[2:01:27] show that we're going to be in a situation where all of a sudden we're

[2:01:32] going to need to house 96 plus additional students at Wood Middle School

[2:01:36] potentially and we have room still for growth at Ensignal, correct? That is

[2:01:44] correct. Yeah, I just I'm not comfortable with building a new

[2:01:49] building and being stuck then at the same size that we're at. Again, this is professional

[2:01:53] experience with school communities. I'm doubting your process, but those numbers matter to me

[2:01:59] because I've seen time and time again that we throw a bunch of money into a new building

[2:02:05] and then suddenly the plan changes. And so I am concerned just because I've lived through

[2:02:11] it and I've watched probably almost a billion dollars of construction be kind of thrown

[2:02:16] away over the years in my career and I don't want to be a part of that here.

[2:02:20] I totally appreciate your comment.

[2:02:23] I would say that definitely we are not throwing away the money.

[2:02:27] Even if we expand, let's say another 200 students show up, this building is still being used.

[2:02:32] It won't be a case of demolishing this building and starting from scratch.

[2:02:37] And I'm also a firm believer of using developer fees when new developments come in and new

[2:02:41] students are generated from that development.

[2:02:44] If we use our bond funds to come to, let's say, think forward and build for what developers

[2:02:50] owe us, then we'll have tough time collecting those developer fees also.

[2:02:56] So this brings me back to my question of, like, because now I'm going to put myself

[2:03:00] in the, and I'm not trying to give you guys a hard time, but I am, because I just lived

[2:03:04] through too much of it, and I'm not saying we're throwing the $80 million away, but

[2:03:08] I've watched brand new buildings suddenly become obsolete within a year, like, truly.

[2:03:14] So I want to make sure that we're being different and doing different this time

[2:03:19] than my experience in a district nearby.

[2:03:23] So my other concern is if suddenly we have more kids,

[2:03:28] but now they can't go to their neighborhood school,

[2:03:31] right, we might have space events and all or somewhere else,

[2:03:33] but like how are we, I just want to make sure that we're being really forward thinking

[2:03:38] around how that happens.

[2:03:40] And if we cannot build some space for some growth on the wood campus, if we're building

[2:03:45] a brand new building, can we not make it so that there is a possibility for some meaningful

[2:03:51] extra classrooms to be built in there so that we can accommodate growth should it happen?

[2:03:57] So yes, that's your question.

[2:04:00] But I also think we have to remember that there's a number of ways we deal with growth,

[2:04:04] not all of which means more classrooms.

[2:04:05] classrooms. We use the current utilization, if you're familiar with this, but the utilization

[2:04:12] of classrooms has to do with teacher prep periods where they spend their prep in their

[2:04:16] classroom. And if we just change that even slightly, we suddenly greatly increase the

[2:04:21] enrollment capacity of a school. So our first charge, as Mr. Kahn just pointed out,

[2:04:28] the charge from the beginning was to match the size of the school we currently have,

[2:04:31] and we've done that, the same number of classrooms. And by simply changing the

[2:04:34] way we love those classrooms, we can increase the capacity of that school, add to that the

[2:04:38] possibility of adding more classrooms and we have a great capacity to increase that school

[2:04:43] should it be necessary.

[2:04:44] Well, I want to add and jump in one more time, I'm sorry, because I was a teacher with

[2:04:48] a cart who had to travel around and it is no way to teach and I will not put teachers

[2:04:53] in a position where they're having to come into the classroom at the same time the

[2:04:56] kids are coming to the classroom and try and run and set up a classroom and teach

[2:05:00] class because they're traveling around in a cart, which is what you would be suggesting

[2:05:04] if we were to utilize the classrooms more that way.

[2:05:08] So I'm all for, like, let's use classrooms after school for after-school programming,

[2:05:11] but I'm not going to put teachers on carts traveling around as a part of our contingency

[2:05:15] plan.

[2:05:16] It's just one of a number of strategies that many districts in the Bay Area use as

[2:05:20] a way to deal with growth.

[2:05:22] There are not all teachers, some are already part-time.

[2:05:25] My point is there are a number of strategies available to us.

[2:05:28] I do want to be absolutely adamant that by no stretch of any imagination is this a waste

[2:05:35] to proceed with this exactly as drawn.

[2:05:37] There's a tremendous amount of flexibility and quality of space, all the teaching environments

[2:05:42] that you need both indoor and outdoor spaces.

[2:05:44] But I'm really grateful for the comments, and I think at a minimum I'm walking away

[2:05:48] from this is, what would happen if I had 200 students?

[2:05:51] And I don't have an answer for you immediately, but I know I've got enough room to

[2:05:54] deal with, and enough flexibility,

[2:05:56] that there's probably a good answer to that.

[2:05:59] So with the current configuration,

[2:06:00] the way you're suggesting there's room to absorb,

[2:06:03] and again, we have to do it in multiples of 32,

[2:06:06] so that would be what, I don't have my calculator

[2:06:08] in front of me, was that 196 would be another,

[2:06:12] multiple of 32, you're the math guy, shark.

[2:06:15] What's a multiple of 32 that would get as close to 200?

[2:06:18] 196. 196.

[2:06:19] So we can get, we can absorb 196 more students.

[2:06:24] I'm not making that categorical theme right now, but I certainly think that between adding classrooms

[2:06:28] and looking at utilization rate of some staff, there's an answer to this question.

[2:06:32] Okay. And again, I want to be clear. I'm not suggesting you're throwing away money.

[2:06:36] I'm saying that I've seen it in other places, and I just don't want to be a part of creating a situation where we're obsolete.

[2:06:42] Thank you.

[2:06:44] I had a couple other questions.

[2:06:46] I'm going to stop now.

[2:06:47] Can we throw up the slide on the timeline?

[2:06:49] I just want to be able to clarify the timeline and make sure that

[2:06:54] we know how long this process will take, because I was a little confused.

[2:07:01] We kind of went through it really fast.

[2:07:02] I apologize for doing that. I was getting so much about how long we were taking.

[2:07:06] I know we're like, it's the last meeting of the year.

[2:07:07] You think it'd be simple, right?

[2:07:08] The last meeting of the year, we've got ten items.

[2:07:11] But I wanted to make sure that we all understood the timeline,

[2:07:14] because I felt like, yeah.

[2:07:16] There it is right there, I got it.

[2:07:17] So the demolished site and prep,

[2:07:19] that is demolishing of LUM, correct?

[2:07:22] Yes, so I'll go a little slower on this.

[2:07:23] Yes, exactly right.

[2:07:24] This represents two things, the demolition of LUM

[2:07:27] and also the new campuses, the new portable buildings.

[2:07:33] So this starts in,

[2:07:37] you know, hopefully

[2:07:37] in the next couple of months we're gonna demolish.

[2:07:39] The first thing to happen is demolish LUM.

[2:07:41] And then we're in the process

[2:07:42] of ordering those portable buildings and that by June of 24 those buildings are

[2:07:47] installed and on site. So that the idea is that this is the part that I would

[2:07:53] students would go to the temporary campus starting in the school year of

[2:07:57] 24-25 exactly fall of 24 they show up their first day is there over the

[2:08:02] summer move-ins happen and then they're in the portables for an entire

[2:08:07] year two years two years yeah it's a tough couple years and that's my

[2:08:12] comment before about the quality of the space of the animals.

[2:08:14] So they're there for two years and then they, so that means that a student that enters for

[2:08:20] their first time will get the new campus for a year and that our incoming students this

[2:08:26] year are students that won't ever actually get into the new campus.

[2:08:32] You're absolutely unequivocally correct.

[2:08:34] Just putting it up there for the final one.

[2:08:35] And all the more reason why it's essential that the quality of that campus be the

[2:08:40] if that's the can be, despite being a bunch of people.

[2:08:42] No, absolutely.

[2:08:43] And then how long did we first see Otis

[2:08:45] being on that temporary site?

[2:08:48] About two years as well.

[2:08:49] It's a significant, no, it's the vast majority

[2:08:52] of that campus is also being replaced.

[2:08:53] So we're building a temporary site that would house

[2:08:55] and be a campus for four years.

[2:09:00] And then this isn't time offline related.

[2:09:04] It's more, our community is not one

[2:09:09] One that likes a lot of change from its tradition and one of the things that this is impacting

[2:09:14] greatly and I just want to put it out there for everyone to know, for us to have a conversation

[2:09:17] about is our little league fields.

[2:09:21] And I know that there's been a lot of pushback as to what is happening with that in conversations.

[2:09:27] So I just wanted to give Sharka a moment to be able to tell us like those conversations

[2:09:32] and how that's going and where those move to and because we're literally putting

[2:09:38] our roads for that.

[2:09:39] That is good.

[2:09:40] So yeah, we got in touch with the Little League officials right away as when this discussion

[2:09:46] started, we have previewed each and every iteration of the plan with them.

[2:09:51] They understand that they won't have access to one of their fields starting next year

[2:09:56] in July, but they still will have access to their second field.

[2:10:01] And once everything is said and done, they will have access to one field which

[2:10:07] which would be built towards the back end of the school.

[2:10:11] Okay.

[2:10:11] And then the last, because this is also something that the community likes to bring up,

[2:10:14] and I wanted to make sure that we have it on the record,

[2:10:18] the demolition of LUM would start in September and happen throughout the year.

[2:10:24] And then when we're on that campus, there's obviously going to be some type of public outcry

[2:10:28] of if it couldn't be a school, how come it's now a school all of a sudden.

[2:10:31] So if you want to address the liquefaction issue.

[2:10:35] And we thought about that. You're quite right. So as you might recall, the issue with the

[2:10:40] existing lump school is that you have liquefiable soils and kind of differential settlements

[2:10:45] during a strong seismic event. Enough of the soil would subside that large portions of

[2:10:50] the existing foundations are unsupported. If we were able to build lump new as we're

[2:10:56] building wood new, we could deal with the soils work, but they can't deal with

[2:11:00] soils underneath the existing building.

[2:11:02] Once LUM is demolished, we're able to do what's called

[2:11:05] an over-excavation and recompaction of that soil.

[2:11:09] And good or bad, portable buildings

[2:11:12] are the most resilient buildings there are.

[2:11:14] So we will do the over-exon recompaction

[2:11:17] to deal with the differential settlement.

[2:11:19] And then on top of that, we have a building

[2:11:20] that just naturally can manage

[2:11:22] not having any support underneath it.

[2:11:24] But that same question should be asked also

[2:11:26] for wood school, because the soils at LUM

[2:11:27] are the soils at wood.

[2:11:28] And so the new construction at wood is being built much like what we did for the new classroom building in Ensenol.

[2:11:35] We're using deep piles there, but for the portables

[2:11:37] it's sufficient just to do the over excavation and

[2:11:40] Recompaction and there's no way that could be done for the existing lump school. Okay, and then just kind of put out there that you

[2:11:46] When it comes to budget and concern that we don't really have enough to expand the school as it is

[2:11:53] There is the potentially of some revenue that could lead towards because you're saying it's about a million a classroom

[2:11:59] that if we go down this road and we've compacted this soil, it's all done, the portables are gone.

[2:12:05] It sounds like you're proposing to move Alameda's high facilities there.

[2:12:13] There is the possibility of the income that we could have from whatever we do with Thompson.

[2:12:18] That is correct. Once we get to that stage, that will come to the board.

[2:12:22] And if the board declares it a surplus property,

[2:12:25] we'll go through that process similar to how we did

[2:12:28] the maintenance yard over on, over at, over on Eagle Avenue.

[2:12:33] Okay, thank you.

[2:12:35] That's a great point.

[2:12:36] Go ahead, Gary.

[2:12:37] So the timeline is wood school, then Otis school.

[2:12:40] Is that correct?

[2:12:41] That's correct.

[2:12:42] Thanks.

[2:12:44] Just wanted to add, in case of Otis school,

[2:12:48] what we are thinking and we have talked to their PTA

[2:12:50] and talk to the school administration also most probably there will be a bus

[2:12:55] shuttle service from existing Otis school to the temporary campus. Well that

[2:13:03] reminded me that was one question I was going to ask for our extensive means

[2:13:07] students that take a bus to school is the bus drop off the same space that

[2:13:12] the the parent drop off is in the front of the school as far as the

[2:13:17] plans right now? Yes, that is true. So maybe that's a conversation we need to have with

[2:13:23] them. There is the potential that the new access road, you know, we accelerate that timeline

[2:13:28] and perhaps we can create a second drop off for that. So you're quite right and I think

[2:13:32] it's a conversation we should be having with the temporary. Because right now they

[2:13:34] don't have to jockey for the same space or am I, is that incorrect that they have

[2:13:38] a separate space that the buses have compared to the drop off? At Wood School? Yeah.

[2:13:44] I believe they use the teachers or staff parking lot, yeah.

[2:13:50] Okay, thanks.

[2:13:51] Okay, my turn?

[2:13:53] Okay.

[2:13:55] One, I absolutely love the design.

[2:13:58] I'll just name that I appreciate the complexities of trying to deal with a shell

[2:14:05] and trying to fix all the guts inside of a shell,

[2:14:09] and we still have the shell, and nobody likes the shell.

[2:14:12] So I appreciate the design and even if you were to reconfigure the inside of that shell

[2:14:20] to be upgraded, we would still not be dealing with any more space to have any more capacity

[2:14:25] than we already have, correct?

[2:14:27] Yes.

[2:14:27] All right.

[2:14:28] So one, I was actually, I was taking notes, also my big question was communication with

[2:14:34] kids and families, just like Ms. Bressard asked.

[2:14:36] I was curious about, and I heard you say that families have been involved with

[2:14:40] the design progress with over the last 10 or 12 meetings that you guys have had with them.

[2:14:45] Yes.

[2:14:46] So just wanted to confirm.

[2:14:47] Go ahead.

[2:14:47] Yes, with parents.

[2:14:48] And we completely agree about students.

[2:14:50] One of the things we'd like to do in talking to the principal of CHI that come fall, we

[2:14:54] would love to be able to show the students where we are, you know, working with middle

[2:14:59] for the next video.

[2:15:00] I think that's a great insight for us, particularly around outdoor gathering areas.

[2:15:04] They're not as interested in the classrooms, but they have a lot to say about the outdoor spaces that upper level are terrace.

[2:15:10] So we had already planned on doing that in fall.

[2:15:13] For sure. And then also particularly for the bathrooms, I appreciate the forward thinking aspect of that,

[2:15:19] but it's the kids that are going to be using them.

[2:15:20] And so I appreciate that the administration and the principal, they have ideas about what would be easier

[2:15:28] in terms of you know just general supervision but I'd be curious to get

[2:15:34] some feedback from the kids as well as to what they would be comfortable with

[2:15:37] and what they want as well so. Totally as Mark mentioned you know these are just

[2:15:42] initial ideas and they can be transformed either way. One of the key

[2:15:46] things that came up was right now folks who use the gender-neutral restroom

[2:15:50] let's just say have to go to the office to get a key because they're

[2:15:54] single occupancy and then lock and lock.

[2:15:57] So we are trying to avoid that

[2:15:58] where they're just open for all students.

[2:16:01] That's great.

[2:16:02] And then, I know, Shark, you were in the city school

[2:16:06] subcommittee meeting with me the last one

[2:16:09] and we were talking about those easements

[2:16:10] and I know that Amy Woolridge said

[2:16:14] that she would work with you.

[2:16:15] I just wanted to get an update on that process

[2:16:16] and make sure that that,

[2:16:17] because I know that that's a little bit of a hurdle

[2:16:19] that we have to do before we can even do anything.

[2:16:21] We have to get that to happen.

[2:16:22] That is correct.

[2:16:23] We are working with Amy.

[2:16:25] The presentation that you'll see after this one.

[2:16:28] No, sorry, Ensign, all you folks have already seen that.

[2:16:31] We have already submitted easement paperwork on that one to the city.

[2:16:36] And the easement paperwork for this one is ready also.

[2:16:39] It's slightly more complicated because one, there is an easement,

[2:16:43] which is one set of legal documents.

[2:16:46] And then the second one is a joint use agreement with the city

[2:16:49] where they can use the parking lot for Rittler Park

[2:16:52] when school is not in session.

[2:16:54] Cool.

[2:16:54] And my last comment,

[2:16:56] and then we can move on forward with this, I think,

[2:16:58] is communication with the families.

[2:17:02] It's gonna be absolutely critical that we seem to butt up

[2:17:06] against them.

[2:17:06] We know what he told us.

[2:17:08] And again, I think we have two members of the public

[2:17:12] actually on Zoom tonight.

[2:17:13] So who's gonna hear this?

[2:17:15] but just making sure that we get ahead of this,

[2:17:20] ahead of the LUM demolition, ahead of all of that stuff,

[2:17:24] and be like overly, like it is so in your face

[2:17:28] about the plans, especially because those kids

[2:17:30] and families that are going to be on the old LUM campus

[2:17:33] are going to be completely displaced.

[2:17:35] And while they might be really excited about the plans,

[2:17:37] they're not going to be excited

[2:17:38] about being in the portable.

[2:17:41] Cool. All right, can we move?

[2:17:43] Can I propose a change? Say again?

[2:17:45] Can I propose a change to what we're voting on?

[2:17:47] You can make a motion. Sure.

[2:17:48] Can I make a motion that we break this apart into two pieces,

[2:17:52] one that we can vote tonight to approve the demolition and site prep

[2:17:55] for the Lum campus, so that first part so we can get going right away,

[2:18:02] but that we come back and have another review about the building capacity

[2:18:06] and possibly another option around building capacity for wood at a second time.

[2:18:11] I understand that these things are in master plans and everything else

[2:18:14] but as an audience member and person receiving information.

[2:18:18] There's a lot of information coming at us a lot of the time,

[2:18:21] so I'm sorry that I never asked the student count number before,

[2:18:24] but I need some more time to think about it

[2:18:26] because I cannot vote tonight in good conscious for a building

[2:18:29] that's about the same size as we have now.

[2:18:32] So I'd like a little bit more time to understand what's going on,

[2:18:35] but I also know that we need to get construction underway.

[2:18:37] So my recommendation would be that we break this apart

[2:18:40] and we revisit the second part

[2:18:42] and hopefully have some more plans that would allow us to have more capacity

[2:18:47] currently or a little bit more understanding about what the capacity

[2:18:49] growth could be. Okay, so we have a proposal. Do we have a second to take a vote on that?

[2:18:56] Who's seconded? Gary's seconding. Okay, so we have a motion

[2:18:59] in a second to divide this into two

[2:19:04] separate votes.

[2:19:07] So we'll go ahead and take a roll, actually

[2:19:12] we'll go ahead and see.

[2:19:13] Yeah, you don't need a roll call.

[2:19:15] I don't need a roll call vote

[2:19:15] because we used to do that during Zoom

[2:19:17] and that was just my habit.

[2:19:18] Okay, so we have a motion and a second.

[2:19:21] All those in favor?

[2:19:23] Aye.

[2:19:25] President, do we have a discussion now

[2:19:27] that we made a motion?

[2:19:28] Yeah.

[2:19:28] Okay, sorry.

[2:19:31] We have a second, or we have a discussion.

[2:19:34] So, yes, go ahead.

[2:19:34] I would just like to say that if we break this up

[2:19:36] it would be deeply appreciative

[2:19:38] if we got very specific direction on the type of information that we're looking for.

[2:19:44] This process has been an ongoing process that started with B-1, projecting, moving forward.

[2:19:51] We've since then zoned to Ensign L. Ensign L Jr. is going to grow, and we believe, and

[2:19:59] I think that demographic reports support this, that that's going to show some reduction

[2:20:04] in enrollment at Wood moving forward.

[2:20:08] I wanna add that enrollment in middle school

[2:20:10] was a centerpiece of what we discussed

[2:20:12] during the discussion on Bay Farm.

[2:20:15] So in addition to flat enrollment,

[2:20:17] flat or declining enrollment

[2:20:18] for a number of years district-wide,

[2:20:20] we also need to point out that historically,

[2:20:22] very specifically in our district,

[2:20:24] middle school enrollment has been a dip.

[2:20:26] We see kids leave after fifths,

[2:20:28] take private or parochial options and then come back.

[2:20:31] So I understand that we want to have a discussion about what kind of growth or capacity that

[2:20:36] we'd be dealing with at Wood in the event that there was a surge in middle school enrollment

[2:20:41] specifically.

[2:20:43] I just want to make sure that as staff we have very clear direction on what we're studying

[2:20:47] and what targets we want to look like because nothing in our demographic studies right

[2:20:52] now or in our historical local projections indicate that we wouldn't have room to

[2:20:57] accommodate even moderate growth at the middle school.

[2:21:01] So I'm all for whatever the board wants to do.

[2:21:03] I just want to have very specific information on the type

[2:21:06] of targets that we want to study if the question is going

[2:21:09] to become about expanding the advanced capacity

[2:21:13] beyond the 75 to 100 students or 50 to 75 students

[2:21:17] that we've talked about, just so we want

[2:21:19] to leave here really clearly.

[2:21:21] Yeah, I think my main question is, you know,

[2:21:23] and like member Lim, my understanding was that we're talking about modernizing the current

[2:21:31] building. So the numbers weren't on the table around my mind because we were living with

[2:21:35] what we were living with. But if we're building a new building, the living with those same

[2:21:40] numbers to me feel short-sighted. I understand that middle schools drop. Again, I know that

[2:21:46] very, very well, not only in Alameda but everywhere, that families tend to leave public

[2:21:51] schools at middle school. However, if we build the building to that size, then it also limits

[2:21:58] any future possible configurations, changes that the school might be envisioning for themselves.

[2:22:03] So those things could be, maybe they want to become, maybe to deal with high school over

[2:22:10] growth, we want to have another 612 at that site, or maybe we want to change language

[2:22:14] configurations, like when we build a building that constrains us so much to the number

[2:22:18] of classrooms, the number of spaces available, then suddenly the options for academic enrichment,

[2:22:24] interest, opportunities for the school to grow and change become really constructed as well.

[2:22:30] And so I just, I think it's just like, I want to, if we're going to build a new building,

[2:22:34] why can't we have it be one that gives us more flexibility or gives us more real

[2:22:37] estate within the campus to build more later to respond to that?

[2:22:41] If we're raising the current building and building something new, that's my question.

[2:22:52] I'm low to ever not give exactly what the board wants, so we're perfectly comfortable

[2:22:56] doing the studying.

[2:22:57] I appreciate Superintendent Scuderi's request for clarity and are any of the circumstances

[2:23:02] I'd be delighted to do what you're asking.

[2:23:04] I just wanted to make sure the board's aware without meeting in July, this would have

[2:23:09] impact on our ability to make the schedule for when we want to start construction.

[2:23:14] This is the harsh reality of dealing with the Division of State Architect.

[2:23:17] If it's possible for the motion to allow us to continue to proceed with our design,

[2:23:22] knowing that we're also studying parallel ways that we can add additional classrooms,

[2:23:27] that would allow us to maintain the schedule

[2:23:29] and also provide some answers around whether it's student load

[2:23:34] or utilization rates as well as adding new classrooms.

[2:23:38] That in my very narrow world would be ideal.

[2:23:41] My only reservation is around the schedule,

[2:23:43] But everything else you've asked for are perfectly reasonable things that we can study and share with the board. I'm worried about the schedule

[2:23:51] The thing I would like to add in here is that

[2:23:55] The parcel tax the bond

[2:23:58] allocated specific amounts to each project

[2:24:01] So if we want to expand one project, it will be at the expense of another project

[2:24:07] I'm not asking for us to expand the project. I'm expecting asking for us to have

[2:24:12] different options to consider.

[2:24:15] So I understand that adding a classroom would be a million dollars each,

[2:24:18] but I'm wondering what would it look like to maybe move things around

[2:24:22] so there's a more reasonable amount of space if we needed to grow.

[2:24:25] But right now you're giving us like, we sat through a presentation where you showed us what to me

[2:24:29] felt like brand new information about we're no longer living within the building

[2:24:33] or building something new.

[2:24:35] Here, you know, we have new driveways.

[2:24:37] Because that to me was all new information tonight in this form of a presentation.

[2:24:42] If you have given it to me in a board briefing or something, again, that's with like 20 other

[2:24:46] items, I didn't absorb it the right way.

[2:24:49] So I'm not faulting, I'm saying that I couldn't get the information the right way until tonight

[2:24:54] and I'm hearing it.

[2:24:55] And I'm saying, I'm imagining that there could be other ways that we go beyond the

[2:24:59] specific configuration that we're offering that can still be within $80 million that

[2:25:03] can give us room for growth.

[2:25:05] Absolutely. And maybe the stake on my part, we discussed and evaluated those options with the design committee.

[2:25:14] So what you saw today was the final version that the design committee picked.

[2:25:18] But different options were discussed with the design committee on how to place buildings on that campus to maximize open space and give them the classrooms that they need.

[2:25:28] So multiple options were discussed where in one option that and was on this side in another option

[2:25:34] The admin was on the other side and so on and so forth

[2:25:38] Should we do two L shaped buildings one U shaped building and what you get what you're seeing today is?

[2:25:45] Tonight is what the design committee finally reached consensus on but that's the first time we've heard about it

[2:25:52] in public

[2:25:56] Okay. So, we have a motion on the table. Any more discussion?

[2:26:00] I think I just wanted to clarify one thing, and that was, I think, Mark, you answered it.

[2:26:06] And that was the fact is that if we vote, so you're saying that if we do split it up,

[2:26:14] there does seem to impede our schedule then. Is that what I'm understanding?

[2:26:19] I'm not looking to impede the schedule, but I do feel like there are certain questions that are being raised tonight

[2:26:25] after the full impact of looking at things.

[2:26:28] I mean, I didn't go into depth as, you know, Vice President Sweet.

[2:26:33] But I just want to give its due diligence in terms of ideas that I'm just wondering.

[2:26:43] So if we approve everything tonight, then what you're asking for so that we don't delay the

[2:26:53] thing is that what are the specifics so that if we come back in, let's say, the first meeting

[2:26:58] in August, like if between now and August members, we, you know, put down her bullets

[2:27:05] on things that we could maybe address this, because I don't want to delay, but I also

[2:27:09] I also want to give to the fact that I applaud the fact that, you know, this is a very on

[2:27:14] this thing, you know, I mean, I feel like as I stated earlier, we had a little bit more

[2:27:19] lag time when we discussed the theater, we discussed Emma Poole. I mean, they're just

[2:27:24] like I said, I understand the grandiose of this project looks very amazing to me too.

[2:27:28] You know, I like what I see. I also understand what member Vice President Little said about

[2:27:33] the fact is that we were going to spend $75 million on the same 600, well, the 600 capacity.

[2:27:42] And so, you know, we're talking about $5 million more to add 75. But again, I guess, like I

[2:27:47] said, I was leaning on that idea that, well, we were going to pay $75 million on a building

[2:27:53] that basically, but I also understand the rationale that if it's going to be a brand

[2:27:57] new and bulldozed, you know, there might be some other thoughts there that could

[2:28:00] help enhance the overall or like you know whether that's to say over here is

[2:28:05] the space just like you said over here is where we've allocated in case you

[2:28:09] need to do it you have the space right here for that I guess it's like add

[2:28:13] something Gary you're talking about doing that but it's something that's

[2:28:16] beyond the scope of the budget yes any additional thing is not within the

[2:28:20] scope of this budget to be clear so in order that's fine we can come back

[2:28:25] with all kinds of ideas it's not what it's not what we've budgeted

[2:28:28] for, and it's not, we don't have the money for it. And it will mean taking money away

[2:28:34] from something else. So I appreciate the idea of it, but in light of the fact that we literally

[2:28:39] just shut down grades six to eight at a school predicated on the fact that our population

[2:28:46] size is not growing, it's hard for me to think, well, we're allowing for two more

[2:28:52] classrooms per se with 75 kids, but we can't move forward. And knowing that we

[2:28:57] We can still have some flexibilities in the future.

[2:28:59] There's plenty of space there if we ended up needing to deal with stuff.

[2:29:02] There's a whole extra track field even that isn't being used at the moment, that if we

[2:29:07] needed to, we found the money and we wanted to build a whole second campus there, potentially

[2:29:12] the voters would allow us to do those things.

[2:29:15] But for us to kind of like pause in and stop this process at this point in time, when

[2:29:21] I actually, for me, I'm like, I've seen this stuff before.

[2:29:24] I you know for me it wasn't the first night that I've seen it I've seen this

[2:29:28] stuff all along I just have I mean maybe I'm just missing something but when

[2:29:33] were these plans shown to us before I've seen it well maybe it's because I've

[2:29:37] been looking at the presentation so I don't know but I it wasn't completely

[2:29:42] unfamiliar be updates right that the schematic has been in all the measure

[2:29:45] be a particularly that cut through road right I mean there's been

[2:29:49] conversations where this has been public enough where our Little League

[2:29:53] teams have been sending out public calls of we're losing our field next year

[2:29:58] what are we gonna do there

[2:30:00] There has been that kind of conversation. I think that where I'm kind of in disagreement

[2:30:05] is that I know that there are, and I think we've actually had this conversation where we have

[2:30:10] other campuses that are in need of classrooms because they're not able to house the students

[2:30:16] that are in that neighborhood now, and I'm not going to reward a middle school where

[2:30:21] we're not getting those types of, we're not getting that enrollment when I do have

[2:30:25] of schools that have that enrollment need

[2:30:27] and we're not building more classrooms

[2:30:29] at those school sites.

[2:30:31] And we also have an elementary school site

[2:30:32] where we built for the grand future proposition

[2:30:36] of what might happen and we're still under-enrolled

[2:30:39] by 300 students.

[2:30:41] So I-

[2:30:41] Yeah, I mean, it's always, it's really a hard to tell

[2:30:44] and I would say from my experience,

[2:30:45] and again, all I can do is speak to my experience

[2:30:47] and the heartbreak of watching buildings go up

[2:30:49] and then instantly not working.

[2:30:52] That's why I'm pushing so hard

[2:30:54] and I don't normally push hard, so sorry everyone.

[2:30:57] I know it's the last meeting.

[2:30:59] But, you know, I've watched schools go from being like

[2:31:03] anemic and almost like needing to be closed

[2:31:06] to suddenly be busting at the seams

[2:31:07] because of the strength of the program

[2:31:09] that got developed there.

[2:31:10] And I'm not, it's not an evaluative judgment

[2:31:13] of any of our schools, but that's what's on my mind.

[2:31:15] And again, I've seen schools that we've built

[2:31:17] and truly we built a school in Oakland

[2:31:20] that was for TK5 and suddenly they wanted

[2:31:23] to become a TK8, and there was no way to do that.

[2:31:28] So I'm just asking the questions,

[2:31:30] and I get that these proposals are in different places,

[2:31:32] and maybe it's just like the business of my life,

[2:31:35] but I haven't absorbed it in this way until tonight,

[2:31:38] and I think in the future,

[2:31:40] waiting for us to give an announce,

[2:31:42] like to make a decision the same day

[2:31:43] that we're seeing in a public meeting

[2:31:45] doesn't give us a lot of room, and that's my issue.

[2:31:48] Cause like now I'm being forced,

[2:31:49] like I'm asking these questions,

[2:31:51] and now we're up to a deadline,

[2:31:51] and if we don't make the decision right now,

[2:31:53] We don't vote tonight. Then all the timelines get thrown off and that doesn't to me doesn't put us in a fair position

[2:31:59] To make it like a these are public discussions. We need to have them publicly for sure

[2:32:03] I know that one of the things that when we were trying to pass measure B

[2:32:08] That was a huge conversation particularly with the wood community was the fact that we weren't giving them any new

[2:32:13] classrooms that we were just replacing existing portables with

[2:32:18] classrooms and teachers were very quick to point out that we're not getting new

[2:32:22] spaces you're just replacing the current spaces that we have and we said yes and

[2:32:27] that was what we had budget for and did and that's what the measure and what we

[2:32:30] voted on and did I think that what it comes up to is that there's always

[2:32:35] anomalies of can we use this building and can we move five million and what

[2:32:41] comes down to is that five million and you guys getting very creative and

[2:32:44] and figure out how can we find that extra five million,

[2:32:47] particularly when a lot of the money

[2:32:48] is going towards a temporary campus,

[2:32:51] that we really are going to be just getting rid of

[2:32:55] in four years.

[2:32:56] And so it's maximizing the money and pulling that in

[2:32:59] so that we could maximize and not literally

[2:33:02] throw away money, so.

[2:33:04] So folks, we have a motion and a second on the table

[2:33:07] and interest of trying to keep this moving along.

[2:33:10] I'd like to go ahead and call a vote.

[2:33:13] So, all those in favor of the motion to split this into two to approve the budget portion

[2:33:21] and the demolition aspect of it, but to revisit the schematic design, say, I.

[2:33:29] All those opposed,

[2:33:30] say, nay, nay.

[2:33:32] Nay.

[2:33:34] I'm saying nay because now the whole timeline gets thrown off, so I'm not going to propose

[2:33:38] something that goes the whole timeline off, I'll just start accordingly.

[2:33:41] Okay.

[2:33:41] I will say nay to that.

[2:33:44] So at this point then I'm gonna go ahead

[2:33:46] and bring us back and say,

[2:33:47] do we have a motion to approve the schematic design

[2:33:49] and budget for the Wood Middle School project?

[2:33:53] I'll motion.

[2:33:54] Do we have a second?

[2:33:56] I'll second.

[2:33:58] All those in favor say aye.

[2:34:02] All those opposed?

[2:34:04] Aye.

[2:34:05] So that item passes by a vote of three to one, Kerry.

[2:34:10] Okay, our next item is general business item number four,

[2:34:15] the approval of Measure B Emma Hood Swim Center

[2:34:19] at Alameda High School Schematic Design.

[2:34:21] This is also an action item.

[2:34:23] I see that Mr. Kahn is not gonna reintroduce you,

[2:34:26] so I'll go straight to introducing Mr. Quatroci.

[2:34:29] Whenever you are ready, you may begin.

[2:34:31] I'm back, you miss me?

[2:34:32] I did.

[2:34:35] This is for the Schematic Design Approval

[2:34:38] for the replacement pool facility at Alameda High School.

[2:34:43] Much like the previous projects, this is based on our work for Measure B. We had multiple

[2:34:48] meetings not just with your coaches, but because this is both a school district and

[2:34:52] city funded project, we've had an equal number of meetings with the city, both city staff

[2:34:56] and city coaches.

[2:34:58] We also are working with the same Aquatic Design Consultant that we did for Ensignal

[2:35:02] High School and I've personally used on a number of pools, the Aquatic Design Group

[2:35:05] is their name, and they're a fabulous aquatic consultant and have worked really well with

[2:35:09] us, the coaches, and with the city staff. And like the other projects, this has completed

[2:35:14] with professional estimating and all the engineering surveys and soils investigation. There's

[2:35:19] a large list of stuff up there that the pool is going to provide. This was modeled originally

[2:35:25] after Insanol High School and then there's particular places where it deviates, particularly

[2:35:29] where we saw it benefited both the city and the school district. So the first line

[2:35:33] and item there is the competition pool that's 12 lanes.

[2:35:36] It's larger than the pool at Ensenol,

[2:35:39] but works much better for the city programs

[2:35:43] to provide a larger pool.

[2:35:44] It's a deep water or water pool

[2:35:46] as well as competition swim.

[2:35:49] So it's deep water pool,

[2:35:51] but their first lane, first lane and a half are shallow,

[2:35:53] which is a code requirement.

[2:35:55] But then we also have the shallower four lane pool,

[2:35:58] much better than the one at Ensenol

[2:35:59] because we retained that pool that was there.

[2:36:01] This is a deeper three and a half foot deep swim pool that's used for warm-up

[2:36:06] But also is used by city staff or by the school for for teaching for a swim

[2:36:11] I should say on both of these we're still coordinating the final details with the city

[2:36:15] But both of these are sort of the direction

[2:36:16] They're not sort of this is both the direction that the city wanted to go but in design development will continue to perfect this

[2:36:23] Then of course, there's all new pool deck with pool new pool deck lighting. There's bleachers and scoreboard

[2:36:28] There's a one-meter diving board just as we had at Ensignal.

[2:36:32] We could have saved a little bit of the fence,

[2:36:34] but we were doing so much work.

[2:36:36] We just simply replaced all the fence

[2:36:37] and provided new non-climbing fence,

[2:36:39] which you don't have right now.

[2:36:41] That includes a fabric covering.

[2:36:43] There's an all-new pool equipment building,

[2:36:45] much like what happened at Ensignal.

[2:36:47] That pool equipment room is just too small,

[2:36:49] so very state-of-the-art pool equipment.

[2:36:51] And we'll continue to coordinate with the city

[2:36:53] and the school district on all that.

[2:36:55] There's deck-mounted showers.

[2:36:56] and then lastly the one of the tennis courts we'll see in a moment is being

[2:37:00] relocated because of the work. There's no planned work for the existing pool

[2:37:04] building. We had hoped to do that but I remember being in the same spot many years

[2:37:08] ago with Ensignal where we looked at the cost of the pool building and that at

[2:37:12] the same point we were unable to do the work on the pool building. So this is

[2:37:16] the master plan drawing showing the work to be done at the existing pool

[2:37:19] building. You can see by the way to the right of the pools the tennis

[2:37:22] court that's important to remember because you'll see shortly we had

[2:37:25] to remove it.

[2:37:26] I'll start with this overall plan first

[2:37:28] and then I'll zoom in.

[2:37:29] This is really about not just the two new pools,

[2:37:31] which you can see the competition pool on the left

[2:37:33] and the smaller practice pool on the right,

[2:37:35] but notice the five tennis courts,

[2:37:37] they're the existing ones.

[2:37:38] We are slightly moving the pool deck

[2:37:40] onto the tennis courts,

[2:37:42] but still providing all the margins

[2:37:43] those tennis courts need.

[2:37:45] But notice to the left, there's a new tennis court.

[2:37:48] The new practice pool sits on top of the six courts.

[2:37:55] So that's being placed there. It's rotated 90 degrees, working with district staff, particularly on the outfield for that softball field.

[2:38:03] So by rotating it, we're able to maintain the 220-foot outfield for that.

[2:38:08] So now let me zoom in, looking at the 12-lane competition pool.

[2:38:13] And then there's the practice pool. The tan represents all the area that is the new pool deck.

[2:38:19] So it's a good large, and one of the problems that Alamed has had is too small of a deck.

[2:38:23] So during swim meets or city events, there'll be a lot of room on the pool deck.

[2:38:28] The bleachers are on the left, but they're mobile.

[2:38:30] So during water polo, you really want to be on the other side,

[2:38:33] so those could be moved over to collocate with the fence between the pool deck and the tennis court.

[2:38:39] Then the practice pool is on the right there.

[2:38:42] Notice there's a new pool equipment building towards the top there.

[2:38:45] And then we're showing no work on the existing pool building.

[2:38:48] There's a little minor work being done to the toilet rooms off of the new pool building.

[2:38:52] But essentially that pool building will stay as it is now we'll undoubtedly paint it on the outside and do a few things like that

[2:38:58] But no other improvements

[2:39:00] I won't spend any time on the technical drawings, but you can see a lot of good deep thought has gone into the pool

[2:39:07] Arrangement you can see the competitive pool

[2:39:09] including the pool

[2:39:13] No, I think I could just be about to go there you go. Thank you

[2:39:17] The pool profiles just happened to not cut it where the one meter pool is diving board

[2:39:23] is, but that's about 12 and a half feet there.

[2:39:26] Ken?

[2:39:27] Yes, please.

[2:39:28] And then that's the practice pool.

[2:39:29] Notice the stairs on the left, both have stair entries into them.

[2:39:33] And then this is a part, I think, we'll continue working with the city on confirming

[2:39:37] exactly the depths at those points.

[2:39:39] Next.

[2:39:40] And then this is terribly exciting, but really important to the city and the school

[2:39:43] staff of the kind of new pool equipment area next.

[2:39:47] And then lastly, we're looking at the budget.

[2:39:50] This was a, it's a $15 million project, half by the city, half by the school district.

[2:39:55] The total cost for what I just showed you, including no work for the existing pool building,

[2:40:00] is $14.7.

[2:40:02] So we're showing about $300,000 under that budget.

[2:40:05] I suspect we'll try to use some of that money to improve a little bit of the pool

[2:40:08] building.

[2:40:08] And then just for information, the upgrade to that existing pool building is quite extensive

[2:40:14] because of the geotechnical issues out there.

[2:40:16] So it's not just modernizing, it's the geotechnical upgrade to that building.

[2:40:21] It was an additional $6.1 million.

[2:40:23] And then go ahead, please.

[2:40:25] And then the last slide is just our schedule.

[2:40:28] We're hoping for a board approval today.

[2:40:30] We'll be completing the construction drawings and then looking for the division state

[2:40:34] architect approval sometime in spring of 24.

[2:40:37] This will likely be less than a one-year project, but we're showing a one-year timeline because we do want to work with schools and city staff on the exact timing for the start.

[2:40:46] But we don't want to start too much later than spring or summer of 24 just because of the wet season.

[2:40:51] But certainly by the beginning of school year 2025, the brand new Alameda High School Aquatic Center will be complete.

[2:40:59] That's it.

[2:41:00] All right.

[2:41:01] Thank you.

[2:41:02] Ms. Lahnigan, I still don't have any speaker slips in hand,

[2:41:06] but is there any hand raised on Zoom?

[2:41:11] No, we do not have any.

[2:41:13] I'm just going to ask one more time,

[2:41:14] are there any public comments on Zoom

[2:41:16] on the Emma Hood pool item?

[2:41:18] Raise your hand now.

[2:41:20] Three, two, one, no raised hands.

[2:41:24] All right.

[2:41:24] Do we have any board comments or questions

[2:41:26] on the Emma Hood pool schematic?

[2:41:29] just one quick question shark when we start seeing this with this meter you

[2:41:36] know diving thing does that then did that permit us now to have a diving

[2:41:40] program that is correct one of the pools will have a depth of up to 12 feet and

[2:41:47] I'm not a swimmer at all but that's my recollection so kids can die from up to

[2:41:52] one meter okay so that will allow us neither high school has ever had a

[2:41:57] diving program is that correct they do actually has about eight kids in the

[2:42:03] dive program right now they use the Ensenal which has the one meter dive

[2:42:07] board or dive board okay so this will allow both high schools have a diet

[2:42:10] program okay any other questions or comments I just during the process when

[2:42:18] was the practice pool the secondary one always part of the schematic or was

[2:42:26] Is that something that changed over time in the design?

[2:42:28] Just for the community, because.

[2:42:30] Yeah, it kind of changed over time with the design committee

[2:42:34] included folks from the districts, or the Elmira High Swim

[2:42:39] team, and representatives from community who

[2:42:42] used the pool from the city side.

[2:42:45] And that was one of the things that came up,

[2:42:48] that let's push back on the upgrades to the pool building

[2:42:53] and get the two pools, which will serve the city and the district.

[2:42:58] That's come before us before.

[2:43:00] That was part of a conversation that happened before.

[2:43:03] No, I just wanted to point out that I know that the biggest community comments

[2:43:07] always came on the showers and the indoor space being something right out of a horror story,

[2:43:13] like when they've gone in there to shower with their kids and stuff.

[2:43:17] But if they came through the community, which is what I was just trying to emphasize,

[2:43:21] that there's a rationale but also that we're being fiscally responsible with the

[2:43:25] money that we have and it is going to cost probably more than what that extra

[2:43:30] space we would have the money for. And I believe the showers are being moved

[2:43:34] outside on the pool deck here, yeah. Oh nice, sorry. Okay, but I agree Ryan, even

[2:43:41] the ensignal pool room, you know, yeah. Okay, any other board comments or

[2:43:48] questions.

[2:43:51] Okay, thank you so much for sharing that one. That was a little

[2:43:58] easier to move through. Motion to approve the schematic design and budget for the

[2:44:03] Emma Hood swim center at Alameda High. Do I have a motion? Fabulous. Do I have a

[2:44:09] second? And vice president, sweet second. So we have a motion and a second.

[2:44:18] All

[2:44:18] All right, you're welcome.

[2:44:20] You're welcome.

[2:44:21] Have a good evening.

[2:44:23] Okay, Ms. Zazo, you're up.

[2:44:27] We have our general business item number five,

[2:44:30] the approval of the 2023-2024

[2:44:32] Local Control and Accountability Plan, the LCAP.

[2:44:35] This is also an action item

[2:44:37] because the end of June is packed full of them.

[2:44:40] Ms. Zazo, you're here to present for us.

[2:44:43] Go ahead.

[2:44:44] Thank you.

[2:44:44] You're welcome.

[2:44:45] So, last time we went through the LCAP together and had a public hearing.

[2:44:51] I just want to remind everybody that we're going into year three of this LCAP, so next

[2:44:56] next year is going to be a heavy year of

[2:45:06] There we go. So tonight I am asking for approval of the LCAP. And just to let the public know,

[2:45:18] as well as you, the process is still not finished. So with and if there is approval of the LCAP,

[2:45:27] we submit that to the Alameda County Office of Education.

[2:45:32] They often ask clarifying questions

[2:45:34] that we do get back to them in writing.

[2:45:37] Those are all posted on the website

[2:45:40] and then that sort of closes the end of the process.

[2:45:44] And then we go into the process quickly

[2:45:47] of starting the new planning for the next LCAP.

[2:45:50] And

[2:45:52] that is it.

[2:45:54] That was short.

[2:45:55] Oh my God, that's it.

[2:45:56] I was looking to see,

[2:45:57] Look at Lindsay just literally clapping in the back.

[2:46:00] That was great.

[2:46:01] That was an hour-long discussion about this.

[2:46:05] That was like literally about a 90-second thank you for keeping it brief.

[2:46:11] All right.

[2:46:12] I still have absolutely no speaker slips in hand, Ms. Nodder, we're not going to...

[2:46:19] I do not have any raised hands on Zoom.

[2:46:22] They are missing all the fun because this is a fun meeting tonight.

[2:46:26] So do we have any board questions or comments?

[2:46:29] I have a bunch.

[2:46:30] Okay.

[2:46:31] I love you.

[2:46:32] I love you.

[2:46:34] I love to like the, okay.

[2:46:36] I'm going to ask more questions than your presentation.

[2:46:38] Do we?

[2:46:39] Stop it.

[2:46:40] I'm sorry.

[2:46:41] Can you tell we're ready for a break?

[2:46:42] I need public hearings before I vote.

[2:46:44] I'm sorry.

[2:46:44] Motion to approve the 23-24 local control and accountability plan.

[2:46:49] Do I have a motion?

[2:46:51] I move.

[2:46:51] Okay.

[2:46:52] Thank you.

[2:46:52] Do we have a second?

[2:46:54] Thank you very much Mr. Lim. So we have a motion in a second. All those in favor say

[2:47:00] aye.

[2:47:00] Aye.

[2:47:01] Great. That one passes unanimously. Ms. Lawner again. All right. Ms. Stark. He waited

[2:47:07] a long time. Our next item is the general business item number six, the presentation

[2:47:12] of the 2022-2023 local indicators. This is an informational item only. Ms. Lindsay

[2:47:18] Jenkins-Stark, our senior manager of data and assessment is here to present for

[2:47:22] for us this evening. Welcome. Thank you so much, President Little, members of the board.

[2:47:27] So tonight I'll be presenting the local indicators, which is required to be presented in concert

[2:47:32] with the LCAP, which is why we are holding this tonight. And I'm going to focus in on

[2:47:36] one of our local indicators because as you'll see in a minute, we have several. The Family

[2:47:40] Relationships and Trust Survey, which is a new survey as of last year, and is

[2:47:45] showing some very promising results, while also remains some areas for improvement.

[2:47:53] Those are the outcomes of this presentation. I will also try to keep it as short as possible.

[2:47:57] Okay. So we'll be reviewing them and highlighting one of the indicators as I mentioned.

[2:48:02] And as I mentioned before, this comes in concert with the LCAP. As the local indicators,

[2:48:06] you'll see is one of the suites of indicators that we use to progress, monitor, and improve

[2:48:12] via the LCAP. I'm going to skip that slide for a minute because it actually makes more

[2:48:18] sense to go to the priority areas. So just as an overview, these are each of the priority

[2:48:23] areas in the LCFF funding formula and the state indicators and local indicators that

[2:48:29] apply to each of those priority areas as an overview for your information. And just

[2:48:35] a reminder that we have identified a suite of indicators that we think our strategic

[2:48:39] strategic plan will produce collective impact around and that most of the indicators that

[2:48:46] we are required by the state of California to provide information on are included in those

[2:48:53] strategic planning indicators.

[2:48:54] Not all of them, however, I just want to highlight that over the course of the year

[2:48:58] we've been presenting on those state indicators as a part of that strategic plan suite,

[2:49:04] the suite of indicators we think will have collective impact on that strategic plan.

[2:49:06] Not all of those are included in the strategic plan indicators, however, because some of

[2:49:11] them contextually don't make sense to monitor.

[2:49:13] So for example, as you'll see in our local indicators, the Williams textbook complaints,

[2:49:18] for example, we have 0 percent or a 0 percent out of compliance with textbooks.

[2:49:24] So it doesn't make sense to necessarily, of course, will we continue to monitor that,

[2:49:27] but it doesn't make sense for that to be an area of improvement for our school district.

[2:49:30] And so that's why you won't see all of those included in that suite of indicators

[2:49:34] around our strategic plan.

[2:49:36] Alright, skipping back.

[2:49:37] This is the timeline for local indicator collection analysis and reporting that comes from the

[2:49:43] State Board of Education, December through April.

[2:49:46] We are measuring, gathering and analyzing the data.

[2:49:49] By July 1st, we were reporting that data to a governing board, which is this exact

[2:49:52] meeting tonight.

[2:49:54] And in mid-August to September, I actually report these results to the California State

[2:49:58] Dashboard.

[2:49:59] Since the release of the dashboard in 2017, AUSD has always met the standard in the area

[2:50:05] of the reporting on our local indicators.

[2:50:10] So these next three slides are the local indicators that we have identified for each of the priority

[2:50:15] areas.

[2:50:16] Some are state identified, some are identified by us, and the most recent results that

[2:50:20] we have that we are going to be reporting to the California dashboard in the fall.

[2:50:25] Again, we won't be going into each and every one of these indicators.

[2:50:28] As you can see, there's quite a few.

[2:50:29] I want to note that any time it's student data in the report which is attached to this agenda item

[2:50:35] Which has the full suite of indicators?

[2:50:37] We are disaggregating these results by student groups, and then I also want to highlight that

[2:50:43] We did actually report the results the

[2:50:46] Disaggregated results in more depth on some of these indicators that are some of our highlighted strategic planning indicators as well

[2:50:52] for example, the ELA and Math SBAC results were reported in detail on October 25th,

[2:50:59] as was graduation rates on April 14th, et cetera.

[2:51:04] So again tonight we will be focusing in on the results from the Family Relationships and

[2:51:09] Trust Survey, which is aligned to our priority three parent engagement.

[2:51:13] And I look forward to highlighting additional local indicators in future years, but selected

[2:51:17] this one due to the fact that this is year two of this survey and wanted to show

[2:51:22] we use some of the results and compare two years of data.

[2:51:28] So the first slide on our family relationships

[2:51:30] and trust survey is participation.

[2:51:32] So did we get representative participation?

[2:51:35] Overall, we had pretty good representation.

[2:51:37] You'll see in the blue, that's the percent of respondents

[2:51:39] and it's disaggregated by student groups.

[2:51:42] And the orange is the percent of our student population.

[2:51:44] So ideally, those two bars are the same.

[2:51:47] You'll notice there are areas for improvement

[2:51:49] and representation from Hispanic or families of Hispanic and Latino students in addition

[2:51:55] to special education. I just want to note that while it looks like some pretty large

[2:52:00] discrepancies around free and reduced lunch and primary language at home is not English,

[2:52:05] those are calculated slightly differently. When we're asking in a survey to report, self-report

[2:52:09] whether a student receives free and reduced lunch, that's very different than the way

[2:52:12] we collect that information by asking about income level. So those discrepancies are

[2:52:17] in part due to the fact that we're actually asking very different things.

[2:52:24] And then lastly, I want to highlight that this year we had a total number of 1,389 respondents.

[2:52:29] Last year we had about 900, so we nearly doubled that, which I think is a great, great tribute

[2:52:35] to both Susan Davis's communication strategy around the survey, in addition to the really

[2:52:40] hard on-the-ground work of our family liaisons at our sites that represent a lot

[2:52:47] of the student groups which we want to hear from in order to meet those representation

[2:52:52] goals.

[2:52:53] So here is the overall results, again disaggregated, of the family relationships and trust survey.

[2:53:02] You'll see the average, the overall average, and just as a reminder, this is on a liquid

[2:53:08] scale zero, or actually say one, two, five, excuse me.

[2:53:12] So a four is an agree, and a five would be a strongly agree.

[2:53:16] So you'll see an average response this year of a four, which is excellent, very exciting,

[2:53:23] and about 94% overall of respondents above a three.

[2:53:27] You'll notice that is an improvement from last year, where we had about a 3.8 average

[2:53:32] item response and an 88% of respondents at a three or above.

[2:53:38] For any larger differences between student groups and the overall scores, we did additional

[2:53:45] tests to see if there was statistical significance, which I'm going to show you right now.

[2:53:49] So I'm going to take you back to stats class real quick.

[2:53:54] And remind you that the bars that you're seeing above represent the range in which we would

[2:53:59] expect to find the true average score for that group with a 95% confidence.

[2:54:07] So this calculation takes into account how far spread out all the responses are from

[2:54:12] the average, which is called the standard deviation.

[2:54:14] in addition to how many responses we got,

[2:54:17] which is the end size or the sample size.

[2:54:19] So when the bar of that group does not overlap with the other,

[2:54:24] then those true means could never be the same, right?

[2:54:27] So we do see a statistically significant difference.

[2:54:30] When those bars do overlap,

[2:54:31] it means that the true mean could be the same

[2:54:34] and therefore there's no statistically significant difference.

[2:54:37] So in this first slide,

[2:54:39] you'll see that at first glance on average,

[2:54:41] the families of black and African-American students

[2:54:45] scored a 3.9 overall on this survey.

[2:54:48] And non-black or African-American families,

[2:54:51] excuse me, families of non-black or African-American students

[2:54:53] scored a 4.0, that actually there's no statistically

[2:54:57] significant difference between these responses,

[2:54:59] the average responses.

[2:55:00] When we find the true average,

[2:55:02] we see that those confidence intervals overlap,

[2:55:05] and so they could be the same,

[2:55:06] therefore there is no, with 95% confidence,

[2:55:08] There is no difference in those responses.

[2:55:12] And then the same here, so this is, the next slide is the families of students who are participating

[2:55:20] in the CCASE program with an average of 4.3, and families of students who did not participate

[2:55:30] in the CCASE program with an average of 4.

[2:55:32] Those confidence interval bars do not overlap, so there is a statistically significant difference

[2:55:37] between those oars, between there's a positive response there from the families or more positive,

[2:55:44] I should say, than the overall population of the families participating in CSAs.

[2:55:49] The next slide is trying to calculate or trying to understand if there's a difference between

[2:55:54] families of students who speak predominantly English at home versus a language other than

[2:55:59] English.

[2:56:00] There is a difference there in the positive, as you can see.

[2:56:06] And then finally, another difference that was notable that I wanted to test was the

[2:56:11] results of families of non-binary students compared to families of binary students,

[2:56:17] in which case we do see a statistically significant difference, and the difference is less than

[2:56:24] the overall average of families.

[2:56:29] Oh, I should say, sorry, I forgot one piece, that's just showing that there's a difference

[2:56:33] or not.

[2:56:34] I also ran a test for the meaningfulness of that difference.

[2:56:36] So is it a small effect size, medium or large, which is basically, we know that, for example,

[2:56:42] in this slide, on average families of non-binary students are rating the relationships and

[2:56:50] trust that they have with staff lower than the overall average.

[2:56:53] There was a medium effect size here, so there is a medium relationship.

[2:56:59] And then the other two I meant to say, where we do have statistical significance,

[2:57:04] against there was a small to medium relationship.

[2:57:09] The average item response and distribution by item,

[2:57:14] we also took a look at, so each item

[2:57:16] and how they were rated.

[2:57:18] Interestingly enough, the exact same items

[2:57:20] from last year popped up as the highest rated.

[2:57:23] Highest rated was staff at the school,

[2:57:24] really care about the local community.

[2:57:27] I feel respected by teachers and administrators

[2:57:28] at the school, and I respect the teachers

[2:57:31] and administrators at the school.

[2:57:32] The most low-rated was identical to the previous year, staff at the school work hard to build

[2:57:40] a trusting relationship with parents and teachers and administrators at the school, believe

[2:57:45] that talking with parents helps them understand their students better.

[2:57:48] I just want to note, though, even though those, we had the same questions, sort of highly

[2:57:54] ranked end on the lower end, all of those questions improved from the year prior, which

[2:58:01] which is great news.

[2:58:02] So in summary, this is the second year of the survey.

[2:58:07] Actually, I've pretty much reviewed all of these.

[2:58:09] I just wanna highlight that one thing

[2:58:12] that I think isn't very obvious, which is last year,

[2:58:15] there was a statistically significant difference

[2:58:18] in the average responses of black

[2:58:20] and African-American families

[2:58:22] that was less than the overall average response.

[2:58:25] And this year, there was not a difference

[2:58:27] between the overall response on those families,

[2:58:28] which does signify some improvement in the perception of relationships and trust with

[2:58:33] staff for that group. I also want to highlight that there was no statistical difference in

[2:58:39] the responses for special education students, the families of special education students,

[2:58:44] and that we still, that we do see positive differences for the families of English

[2:58:51] learners and the CCSE scholar students participating in that program, which is really exciting.

[2:58:56] I think what's concerning and something that we – that Pasquale is going to discuss

[2:59:01] in the next slide are the responses from families of non-binary students.

[2:59:06] We saw that they were lower than other families, and so that's definitely something that

[2:59:10] we want to keep our eye on in future surveys.

[2:59:13] And Superintendent Skidari, excuse me, is going to discuss some of the activities

[2:59:18] and the approaches that we're taking in order to address this.

[2:59:22] Yeah, I just, you know, we've heard from families who've come out in public comment

[2:59:26] and we've seen even in some preliminary data that we've collected internally that there's

[2:59:32] a significant need for additional training. Melissa Saunders has come on and done I guess

[2:59:38] what you could call a preliminary needs assessment with our staff and we see a pressing and

[2:59:44] kind of self-requested need from our counselors and school psychologists to kind of get

[2:59:49] a little more training and a little more comfort in supporting students and families on this

[2:59:54] issue as a whole.

[2:59:56] So we'll see some PD and I know Ms. Zazo and.

[3:00:00] Tanya Harris, we're talking about really reinstituting some training around our curriculum

[3:00:06] on how to talk about different types of families and support students. And I think we really

[3:00:13] are in the process, and I know there's folks who want us to kind of invest more heavily

[3:00:17] in a single position at the moment. But I think what you see here is a long-term commitment

[3:00:22] to try to build multiple points of capacity in our system to support all of our students,

[3:00:27] certainly all of our LGBTQ plus students and our non-binary

[3:00:31] trans students who are in really different and uniquely

[3:00:35] challenging situations globally and within our district.

[3:00:39] So we'll have some PD this fall. We are bringing on someone

[3:00:43] in basically a 20% consultancy position to kind of continue to deepen

[3:00:47] our needs assessment. Jodi, in student services

[3:00:52] Jodi McCarthy is reaching out to some organizations like Gender Spectrum.

[3:00:55] I've done some work in my previous district with our family coalition to see if there's

[3:01:00] some external expertise that we could bring them right away to kind of broker that training.

[3:01:04] With those front line staff, counselors, intervention leads, and obviously our classroom teachers

[3:01:10] to support our kids represented in that part of our data.

[3:01:17] That is the end of my presentation.

[3:01:20] Thank you.

[3:01:22] Ms. Lonergan, I don't have any speaker slips.

[3:01:28] Do you have any hands raised?

[3:01:31] We do.

[3:01:32] We have one public comment, Ms. Broussard.

[3:01:35] Great.

[3:01:37] Hi.

[3:01:38] Thank you so much.

[3:01:39] Thank you so much, Lindsay, for this presentation.

[3:01:41] I really appreciate it.

[3:01:43] I saw the total number of responses, and I think the speed of this presentation was

[3:01:48] a little tough for me to follow.

[3:01:50] I didn't see, do you have a sense of, or do you have a percentage of total completion,

[3:01:58] like of all the folks that received the survey, how many of them completed it, and versus like

[3:02:04] the total number of families in our district overall, what was the overall completion

[3:02:07] rate?

[3:02:08] Yeah, thanks.

[3:02:10] Sorry, thank you for reminding me of that.

[3:02:12] One of us will probably take that question out.

[3:02:14] Sure.

[3:02:14] Was that the end of her comments?

[3:02:16] Yes.

[3:02:17] Thank you.

[3:02:17] You're welcome.

[3:02:19] Okay, I will open it up to board comments and questions

[3:02:24] and maybe kick it off with,

[3:02:26] I think that's a really interesting question

[3:02:27] that was raised by a public speaker.

[3:02:30] Do you have that data that you could share with us?

[3:02:32] And especially acknowledging,

[3:02:34] you guys like doubled the number in a year.

[3:02:37] So let's relish that, but then also like,

[3:02:42] sky's the limit maybe, how much more do we need to climb?

[3:02:46] It's a little complicated, so let me talk about that first.

[3:02:50] So we can identify the number of families that we serve.

[3:02:53] So just as a reminder that this is a family survey about a student's experience in school.

[3:02:58] And so we're not looking for 9,000 or 8,800 responses because that's the number of students

[3:03:04] we have, but rather a fraction of that, which is more like around the 6,000 mark.

[3:03:09] In addition to that, because this, the implications of the survey are really around

[3:03:15] on school culture, if we allow families to respond

[3:03:19] for every student who might be at a single school,

[3:03:21] we would have over-representation

[3:03:22] of that particular family's experience at that school.

[3:03:24] So families are submitting one response per school,

[3:03:28] even if they might have multiple students at that school.

[3:03:31] Because again, a reminder of the purpose of the survey

[3:03:34] is really to have implications for school

[3:03:37] and district culture.

[3:03:38] So it's complicated.

[3:03:40] What we're probably searching for is about 6,000 families,

[3:03:43] And then within that even less than that due to the fact that if the family has two students at a single school

[3:03:49] They really are only submitting one survey for that so and then in general when you're doing surveys

[3:03:54] You're you're looking for about 20% as a sample. It's a really solid sample

[3:03:59] So we we hit really close to about that 20% which we were really excited for but of course always always want more

[3:04:06] representation

[3:04:07] particularly for some of the student groups that we didn't see

[3:04:10] equivalent representation to their representation in our district population

[3:04:13] as well. Yeah. Go ahead. We're just on that same point. We're so a family could

[3:04:20] submit multiple surveys if they had children at different school sites.

[3:04:24] Correct. But if they had children all at the same site they got one survey for

[3:04:28] that. We're supposed to submit one. Okay. Yes. Supposed to. Yes.

[3:04:33] I want to thank you for your attention to like we saw the places where there

[3:04:38] It wasn't as much engagement that you dove in

[3:04:40] and tried to understand that more.

[3:04:41] So I really want to appreciate that

[3:04:43] and appreciate the work that's going in next year

[3:04:46] around addressing LGBTQ inclusion of the school sites

[3:04:52] as we all know.

[3:04:55] The rights of many of our students are LGBTQ plus community

[3:04:58] in particular under fire all around the country right now.

[3:05:01] So us creating safe inclusive spaces is important.

[3:05:05] I'll offer my own personal anecdotal information

[3:05:07] which is that a lot of it's the individual interactions

[3:05:10] between kids on the schoolyard.

[3:05:12] So I think we can create spaces where it's safe,

[3:05:15] but we need to train teachers, desperately need to train teachers,

[3:05:18] how to keep a closer eye on all kinds of bullying

[3:05:20] and negative talk within the classrooms

[3:05:22] and constructive ways that they can address,

[3:05:27] especially any kinds of attacks against, you know,

[3:05:31] LGBTQ kids, but again anybody, like,

[3:05:33] how to address those constructively in a way

[3:05:35] that leaves the student that's been treated that way whole and in a way that also doesn't

[3:05:40] create more embarrassment or difficulty which I think is something that our teachers desperately

[3:05:46] need some training on and to look for that on the yard and other spaces because I know

[3:05:51] right now not all of our spaces are safe for our kids and we need to do better.

[3:06:01] I'll just add on that thank you for making sure that when we're doing the survey

[3:06:05] in year two we added in the fact that we could actually track our LGBTQ students and non-binary

[3:06:10] students that wasn't in the first year of the survey and so adding that allowed us to see

[3:06:15] that we were missing something and that took a lot of courage and necessity to do that

[3:06:23] because it showed that why we were wanting to find that information out.

[3:06:27] I find that all the time that we talk about let's do this or that but we don't have

[3:06:31] any of the data to prove why we're doing the things that we're doing and why it's the

[3:06:36] right thing to do. And we've committed ourselves to being that type of district where we're

[3:06:42] getting the data and then applying our money to where the data shows us that we need to

[3:06:46] be putting that money. So I applaud us for doing the 20%. I would say I wish we would

[3:06:52] do more, but I think it's a good first step in addressing at least this kind of

[3:06:57] fundamental gathering data component that we have and then the trainings I know that we have a robust curriculum that we've

[3:07:06] created that needs to be expanded and we have a lot of state mandates that we might not be exactly like doing within the

[3:07:14] classroom but at least now that we can talk a little bit about the cultures that we're creating on a campus and the

[3:07:20] the safety net that we'll create for students.

[3:07:23] I will call out that there was that little bullet point

[3:07:27] that the state does not require any of the reporting

[3:07:30] for students, and that that may have skewed some of the data.

[3:07:33] But also, as a side note, one of the things

[3:07:36] that's always made me uncomfortable with us saying that

[3:07:38] is that when students do feel that they want to come up

[3:07:42] and not come up to their families in our schools

[3:07:45] and they want to change their name or their pronouns

[3:07:48] and that goes into ARIs, really wants to be really clear that once it's in ARIs,

[3:07:53] parents do see that. So that I want to make, I just wanted to kind of point

[3:08:00] that out because I thought that was an interesting note and like it's true

[3:08:02] until our students make them, like they're educated to know when they go

[3:08:06] through that process that their parents might find out that they've made

[3:08:08] that change on their own. That's right and just to remind you this is a

[3:08:11] family survey. So the families are reporting on these demographics so

[3:08:16] So it's likely an underrepresentation due to that exact point that you're bringing up.

[3:08:22] Any other questions or comments?

[3:08:25] Thank you very much.

[3:08:27] Thank you.

[3:08:27] This is an information item.

[3:08:28] We are going to now move on to our next item on general business, which is the adoption

[3:08:35] of the budget for fiscal year 2023, sorry, 2023, 2024,

[3:08:41] and approval of resolution number 2022-2023.72,

[3:08:48] designating certain general funds as committed fund balance.

[3:08:53] Go ahead, Mr. Kahn.

[3:08:54] Thank you, President, little board members

[3:08:56] and Superintendent Skadari.

[3:08:58] We conducted a public hearing

[3:09:00] on this budget proposal on June 13th.

[3:09:03] Since then, two things have happened.

[3:09:05] one this I believe today or yesterday the state passed their budget however we do

[3:09:11] understand that two trailer bills have already been introduced to make changes

[3:09:15] to the to the budget that the governor signed yesterday so we'll have details

[3:09:20] hopefully by middle of July or by by August at this point unless they are

[3:09:27] significant changes our plan is to bring those incorporate those

[3:09:31] changes in our September 13th or 14th presentation and bring them to the board. The second thing

[3:09:36] that happened, the state has certified our transportation plan and we received a letter,

[3:09:42] I believe, last week that we will be getting $1.2 million in 2022-23 the year we are in

[3:09:50] and going forward on an ongoing basis. So that's the additional revenue that we will

[3:09:55] also recognize in September. So tonight our recommendation is to approve the

[3:10:01] budget the way it was presented on June 13th. Thank you very much. Ms. Lonegan, I

[3:10:08] don't have any speaker slips. Do you have any hands raised? I do not. Okay. Three

[3:10:14] two one. Do we have any board comments or questions? I have a quick question.

[3:10:23] Go

[3:10:24] presentation. You mentioned that there was a delay in getting those funds. Has there

[3:10:29] been any update on that since you last presented? The only thing we know that the budget includes

[3:10:35] $955 million for crop 28 allocation. However, CDE has not done any work on that yet. So

[3:10:45] the simplest thing, which is the resource code, it will come under even that has not

[3:10:50] been established yet. What we have done is we created our own local resource code and

[3:10:58] recognized approximate revenue for Prop 28 in the budget.

[3:11:03] So you've accommodated for the delay and that we would be getting that money because

[3:11:07] I think you said that we would probably delay until October, November to even know

[3:11:11] what they're doing on that regard.

[3:11:13] That is correct. So we created three scenarios, low, mid, and high range and then we worked

[3:11:19] with our principals and shared the amount,

[3:11:22] the approximate amount with them

[3:11:24] so they can start planning for those expenditures.

[3:11:28] Thank you.

[3:11:29] Any other questions or comments?

[3:11:32] All right, this is an action item.

[3:11:34] So do I have a motion to approve the adoption

[3:11:36] of the budget for fiscal year 2023-2024,

[3:11:40] an approval of resolution number 2022-2023.72,

[3:11:45] to designating certain general funds

[3:11:48] as committed fund balance.

[3:11:51] I'm a vice president,

[3:11:53] sweet makes the motion and member LaLone seconds.

[3:11:59] We have a motion to second all those in favor say aye.

[3:12:02] Aye.

[3:12:03] That passes unanimously.

[3:12:05] Thank you.

[3:12:06] Thank you.

[3:12:07] All right, number eight.

[3:12:09] Here we go.

[3:12:10] We have another general business item,

[3:12:12] number eight, approval of resolution,

[3:12:14] number 2022-2023.73 education protection account

[3:12:20] spending plan for the 2023-2024 school year.

[3:12:25] Good evening again,

[3:12:26] similar to the last item that the board approved,

[3:12:29] we conducted a public hearing on June 13th on this item.

[3:12:33] At this point, we do not know exactly

[3:12:35] how much we will get in EPA allocation

[3:12:37] because the state has extended the tax collection

[3:12:41] and deadline two, I believe October.

[3:12:45] So what we are doing is using the amount

[3:12:47] that we received in 2223 in current year

[3:12:51] as a placeholder and following this legal requirement

[3:12:55] once we get the exact amount,

[3:12:57] we'll bring that resolution to the board.

[3:13:00] So we are recommending board's approval tonight.

[3:13:04] Thank you very much.

[3:13:06] Ms. Lahnigan, I don't have any speaker slips.

[3:13:10] I don't have any raise hands.

[3:13:11] questions and no hands. Okay. Do we have any board member comments or questions on this

[3:13:15] item? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and ask. Do we have a motion to approve the resolution

[3:13:20] number 2022-2023.73 education protection account spending plan for the 2023-2024 school year?

[3:13:30] I move. Oh, that was a tie. Again, I'm going to give

[3:13:32] that one to Gary this time. I second. And Megan has seconded. So we have a motion

[3:13:38] in a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. That passes unanimously. All right. Our last

[3:13:47] item of the night is general business item number nine, the approval of the 2023-2024

[3:13:53] contracts between AUSD and Alameda Family Services. Before this matter begins, just

[3:13:58] like I had to do last time, I need to disclose that I am currently contracted by Alameda

[3:14:03] of Family Services to assist them with a accreditation

[3:14:07] that they are going through.

[3:14:09] I do not have a direct or non-remote interest

[3:14:11] in the outcome of the contract being reviewed

[3:14:14] in this particular agenda item.

[3:14:16] However, I am choosing to recuse myself

[3:14:19] for participating in the discussion

[3:14:20] and the vote of this agenda item,

[3:14:22] and I'll be handing over the rest of the meeting

[3:14:25] to Vice President Sweet.

[3:14:27] Give me just a second to vacate, please.

[3:14:30] I have some things I have to clean up.

[3:14:32] drum my fingers

[3:14:33] okay I know last time it took me a minute

[3:14:38] I am gonna leave this

[3:14:40] these plums

[3:14:42] which we

[3:14:45] can take

[3:14:45] that is the silliest thing

[3:14:49] I gotta pour them into her hand

[3:14:50] plums

[3:14:58] are immaterial regarding her

[3:15:13] What are you going to do with those plums, Carrie? Are you going to just carry them out? Are you going to make everyone take a plumb home? That's what we'll do. Can we vote on that?

[3:15:23] Bring fruit and leave it in Carrie's hands. Empty. No vessels.

[3:15:29] Okay, thank you Board Member President Little, who has now left the building.

[3:15:33] As Board President Little mentioned, our last item of the night is the approval of the 2223

[3:15:38] contracts between Alameda University and the School District of Alameda Family Services.

[3:15:41] This is an action item.

[3:15:43] Ms. Kirsten Zaza will give us information on this item.

[3:15:46] So staff is asking tonight for the Board's approval on two contracts with Alameda Family

[3:15:51] Services.

[3:15:51] One contract is for the addition of a professional services agreement for $115,000 for an additional

[3:16:01] therapist that will be supporting both Insanel and Alameda High School.

[3:16:07] This is with the SBHIP grant that we received and will be supported for the next three

[3:16:15] years supporting students at both schools.

[3:16:16] The additional is requesting approval on the annual food services agreement with Alameda

[3:16:23] Family Services Head Start Program with meal pricing payable to a USD.

[3:16:29] Thank you, Ms. Zaza.

[3:16:31] We will now take public comments on this agenda item.

[3:16:33] Kerry, guess what?

[3:16:35] I don't have any slips.

[3:16:36] And I have no raised hands.

[3:16:38] Excellent.

[3:16:39] Do we have any board member questions or comments on this item?

[3:16:43] No.

[3:16:45] Oh, Gary has a little pile of plums already. That's so cute.

[3:16:51] I think we've already heard about how they're doing

[3:16:54] before, but I think we've also talked about needs

[3:16:57] and when Ms. McClung came in and gave presentations.

[3:17:00] So I would love in the future to get a little bit of an assessment

[3:17:03] about how these services are going,

[3:17:05] because I know we agreed to do three years

[3:17:08] and we're coming up on that, I think.

[3:17:10] So we will be happy to share the data that we have been collecting and have it really nicely over the last couple of years as well.

[3:17:19] Wonderful. So the theme with Megan is she likes to see it before she votes on it. So thank you. I appreciate that.

[3:17:25] Okay. Motion to approve the 2223. Oh man.

[3:17:30] 2023-2024 contracts between Alameda Unified School District and Alameda County Services.

[3:17:35] Is there a motion?

[3:17:40] Gary makes the motion.

[3:17:42] Is there a second?

[3:17:43] I will second.

[3:17:45] Because you're it.

[3:17:46] Thank you.

[3:17:47] I guess I could do it.

[3:17:48] Okay.

[3:17:48] We have a motion and a second.

[3:17:50] All board members, who is in favor?

[3:17:53] Aye.

[3:17:54] Aye.

[3:17:55] And I vote aye.

[3:17:57] This passes unanimously.

[3:17:58] Thank you again, Ms.

[3:17:59] Zazo.

[3:18:00] That was our last agenda item of the night.

[3:18:02] Thank you to everyone who came, staff,

[3:18:04] staff are logged in to follow us along with us tonight during the meeting of the 22-23

[3:18:08] school year. Our first meeting of the 22, man the number is 2023-24 school year will be

[3:18:15] on August 8 and with that this meeting is adjourned.

Jun 27, 2023 School Board Meeting - Alameda Unified School District

Agenda

Transcript