[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:09] Hello, and welcome to this special board meeting of Placer Hills Union School District. Today is February 25th, 2020-6. I'm calling this meeting to order at 5.02 p.m. President R. Trustee Lopez, Trustee Anderson, Trustee Harvey, Trustee Caldas, and Trustee MacIr. As a reminder, the audio of this board meeting will be recorded. Additionally, the public has access to this meeting, both in-person and via Zoom. Can everyone please stand?
[0:56] We
[1:04] are now on to item 5 which is Agenda approval. I would like to make a change to our agenda
[1:17] and that was easy to remove item 7.3, which is the tender-bred in-place round topic.
[1:24] We have yet to hear back from legal and synthesis that I would like to just remove it until we're
[1:30] able to get some further insight from them. Does anyone else interested in making changes
[1:38] or would like to make a motion? I just like to get a little clarity on removing that from action.
[1:44] Do we have individual care to give a presentation on the playground or is it just to answer questions?
[1:56] I believe they wanted to share some information about the playground.
[2:00] And so to share more before the board, just because they had been able to get around.
[2:05] Um, but um, Trustee Lopez is correct, is, is the, the point you want to, uh, that we're
[2:11] waiting to get in. We had, we asked, um, Comin to, uh, to, uh, sorry, if I did better
[2:17] wrong, if I don't do a recent bit to meet some CMS requirements and so we're just waiting
[2:22] for our legal team to finish that review, but I don't review of that bit. Um, and thus, we
[2:28] just don't, we don't have something to approve tonight. It's an actually. Okay. So I don't
[2:33] I don't know if you want to address how you address if people do want to share information
[2:37] or not.
[2:39] I would be willing to hear so on this item, but then just not have it as an action item.
[2:45] I don't know how the rest of it goes about that.
[2:47] I think I would also like to hear what the individuals who came to present have to say, but so I have
[2:56] no problem keeping it on action, and then we can decide at that time whether we want
[3:02] to take action or not, and we could probably just, you know, if there's a motion to,
[3:12] I want to say a postcard, that's not the table, but the right term. Thank you, table.
[3:17] Then we get tables to the next meeting or when we have information from the attorney's office.
[3:22] That's what I would propose we do. We leave it on so we can hear, and then we can decide
[3:27] that time when we want to take action.
[3:31] That sounds good. What any other trustees like to make
[3:35] it changes to be agenda or is there a motion to approve this? We'll make a motion to approve
[3:43] the agenda. Okay, I'll go ahead and second that then. Trustee Anderson will call vote please.
[3:49] I trustee Harding. I trustee Halded. I trustee McIntyre and trustee Lopez. I
[3:57] motion passes. Next one move on to item six for the consent agenda. Would any
[4:05] board members like to pull an item off of consent?
[4:11] Is there anyone who would like to
[4:13] make a motion to approve the consent agenda as is? I think we just make it check
[4:20] the public once in a while. Yeah, I think so.
[4:26] What do any public like to pull something off their
[4:29] agenda for consent?
[4:33] No.
[4:36] All right. Then I will go ahead and make a motion to approve their consent.
[4:39] agenda as is. Is there a second? I'll second that. Thank you. Let's do a roll. Paul,
[4:47] Well, again, I was so trusty-hiding, trusty-cada of sites, trusty-macata, trusty-well-peds-of-eye,
[4:55] and then trusty-anderson, motion passes again.
[5:00] So we'll go ahead and move on to action items and 7.1 is regarding each school site's
[5:07] comprehensive school safety plan, and Mr. Bigley can please present this item for us.
[5:12] Absolutely. So last month or that or less regular schedule board meeting the board improved the site's confidence of school safety plan
[5:19] There has been additional language on specifically Senate bill 848 that as it was added post
[5:26] School site councils approval their comprehensive safety plans
[5:29] So it's not something ways of district or district office would you know, literally just add into those safety plans?
[5:34] So that's we're bringing back to say in one page update for those safety plans as any as an appendix
[5:42] to have your ad information on file updated in our board policies, but the ones you just kind of
[5:48] approved and the ones that are coming up this month also add to this language. It'll be then
[5:53] written into the actual safety plans in their next cycle, an next year and their adoption
[5:57] faces appetites. Specifically, this one addresses a lot of the child abuse, sexual misconduct,
[6:04] and boundaries trainings, and boundary information, and how we would go about reporting it,
[6:09] hours keeping people safe. It also includes looking at classrooms set up in arrangements to minimize
[6:16] the ability for any negative to happen inside classrooms in school environments.
[6:26] The fiscal
[6:26] impact this is very minimal. You know, our school works program will provide some information on
[6:31] here. Our board policy's already done and so really it's just around training time and we are
[6:35] planning on having a boundaries training at the beginning of our next year and our pre-service
[6:40] say is all right, we've already started
[6:42] arranging that with SIGS trainer.
[6:49] Thank you, Mr. Finkley.
[6:51] Are there any more comments or questions about 7.1?
[6:58] Yeah, OK.
[7:00] Are there any public comments on this particular item?
[7:05] I'm so fired for.
[7:09] OK, what any board members like to make a motion
[7:12] to prove this. I will move to approve the comprehensive rules that you see plan update.
[7:22] Okay, is there a second? No second. Thank you. Let's go ahead and do our roll call
[7:29] about them. So Trustee Calvis. Hi. Trustee McIntyre.
[7:33] Right.
[7:34] Trustee Lopez is I.
[7:35] Trustee Anderson.
[7:37] All right.
[7:37] And Trustee Hartman is I.
[7:39] Motion passes.
[7:42] Moving on now to items.
[7:44] Point two.
[7:45] This is regarding the e-rate program.
[7:48] Dr. Sanders, can you please present this item?
[7:54] This is office.
[7:56] The C2RFP, basically, is a request from a proposal.
[8:02] from infinity who is our contracted vendor to do these proposals for us and C2 is simply
[8:09] just a data part of our internet communications and each year or five year cycle of the
[8:17] issue is awarded funding from the federal government based on our free reduce lunch counts
[8:23] and we get a percentage of last year I think it was 60 percent and the phase paid 60 and
[8:29] pay for it. I'm not sure what it is this year because we're going to the cycle for funding.
[8:35] What it is, they're going to, they've done an R.P., vendors will take a look at the R.P.,
[8:40] they will bid on the R.P., and it's up to the district at that point, if they want to move
[8:45] forward with the funding that's proposed within R.P., but all of this is related to data circuits
[8:51] upgrading our internet infrastructure in the district so that the students and the teachers
[8:56] can stay connected with instructional answers and purposes.
[9:05] Do any board members have comments or
[9:07] questions on this item? We're sure we have a couple questions before you because this is kind of
[9:14] right on my alley of expertise.
[9:18] Usually when CRP is like this in my professional background,
[9:23] not usually quite so specific down to the individual pieces of hardware and a lot of times it's more of
[9:29] base solution so that you get multiple solutions so that they can compete against different hardware
[9:35] vendors and different solutions for best price and best solution versus a specific set of hardware.
[9:43] Is there a reason why we're going for just that specific recipe hardware?
[9:47] Today, so since it's federally funded, we have to show meaning. So let's just say that
[9:53] that our servers are old, then we have to identify the type of infrastructure that the
[9:59] district currently has and upgrade that current infrastructure.
[10:04] So what infinity does, infinity looks at what is available through e-rate, and then based
[10:10] on that availability that the federal government will fund, then those types of equipments
[10:16] I've then put out in the six and there's an idea on that.
[10:21] But it's based on the current need of the industry.
[10:26] Just to clarify, it's based on what's available within the ERAC program.
[10:30] Not just off the need of the industry.
[10:33] Right.
[10:33] So if 100% of the time we have, with infinity,
[10:40] a meeting every year, and our technology specialist will say,
[10:44] This is what's updated in our edition within infinity goes and see what's available and then that's what's available
[10:51] But most of the time what we're beating on is the services those that hardware has a hard price with a lot of vendors
[10:58] But when they go out to create they still have to give us a price on the whole package because that makes sense
[11:05] The services sometimes is is that outlier because e-rate cannot determine what a vendor would charge for installation
[11:12] But e-rate does have a package price that we can look at for the equipment, but that's
[11:18] not always the cost that the industry would pay because supplies and shipping and all
[11:26] of that sometimes can be an issue.
[11:28] And all of the cost of that is within the entire package.
[11:31] It's up to the bidder to bid on a price.
[11:34] And then the federal government always goes with the lowest bidder.
[11:47] Dr. Sanders, then, the federal funding, is this additional funding you get just for
[11:53] the program?
[11:54] So, this is a per-state funding life we receive from the feds.
[11:58] This is a percentage all, so what happens is, let's just say we qualify again 60-40, so
[12:05] the federal government you said was saying that 60% check straight to out vendor, they cut
[12:11] us out.
[12:11] That's the way we prefer it.
[12:13] We don't want to handle that part.
[12:14] We could do the whole thing, but we don't want to do that.
[12:18] Like last year, they paid for 60% and the district paid
[12:21] to 40%.
[12:22] It's a part of the technology budget.
[12:24] So it could pass through the district,
[12:26] but I didn't want to do that.
[12:28] It's easier for the base to pay their part
[12:29] and for us to pay ours.
[12:31] So it's not any kind of allocation that we receive.
[12:35] We receive a percentage of,
[12:36] based on our free-reduced lunch hands.
[12:40] Thank you.
[12:41] I think what I'm asking Laura,
[12:43] Because the financial impact in here talks about how there's no immediate impact, but this
[12:48] is going to come out of our general fund, or what hypothesis come from, and how can
[12:55] that money be spent?
[12:56] It's what I'm really passionate about.
[12:57] So yes, it does come from the general fund.
[12:59] The technology budget is 100% general fund.
[13:04] Some of our title for money can be spent, but only a very small amount.
[13:09] Now, most of the title for money has to be spent on co-curricular safety for the district.
[13:15] But our tech budget is 100% funded from general.
[13:19] I think to expand on that from my perspective is this is the request for beds to get the
[13:24] information.
[13:25] So it tells us how much it would cost us, not that we have to spend that amount of money.
[13:29] So we would say, if you choose to participate and you needed new data circuits, you would
[13:35] maybe $40,000 new, you know, those new $100,000 data circuits doesn't say you have to,
[13:41] it's just giving us that information should we be able to choose to.
[13:45] And then we miss the funding window, then we miss the funding.
[13:48] So that's that's why it's on the, the funding window is closing.
[13:54] But and this funding is for like families, not for the school districts use,
[13:59] like because it talks about how this program is to provide Wi-Fi at a discount and it would be
[14:05] based on the district's free-reduced lunch program counts.
[14:09] So is this for our internet or to provide internet to families?
[14:14] I'm not, guys.
[14:14] For the school district.
[14:15] OK.
[14:16] It's entirely for the school district.
[14:18] But the percentage of is calculated
[14:23] by the number of free-reduced lunch counts
[14:26] that the district has.
[14:28] So that's a formula that the federal government uses.
[14:35] Based on what that does, I think this is an upgrade of the
[14:37] that we're working with.
[14:38] That's exactly what it is.
[14:39] So it's not any circuits like our internet connections
[14:42] or things like that.
[14:43] It's the stuff that runs the wires up in the walls
[14:46] and the connections between all the access points.
[14:49] So it's exactly what it is.
[14:51] You know, I assume we need to upgrade.
[14:53] Yeah, that's the question I have.
[14:54] It's what's the current status of the environment.
[14:57] Is this a nice to have?
[14:59] Is this neat?
[15:03] We haven't had this, we've had upgrades over the years when James was here, but not in this area. Like last year, we upgraded servers, which were old. We didn't get a chance to update all that we had, but we updated what we're going to afford to update through e-rate. This time, we're choosing to do the communication, but data part of it.
[15:26] That means that within the last five years, the district has
[15:29] not upgraded in service. It has not upgraded those data points since COVID more than five years
[15:36] over. Yeah. Do you know, do you know, do you know, do you know, do you know, many of this is like out of
[15:43] what's the right term out of life for beyond lifespan or in the library, the libraries.
[15:49] So I can't speak to that because I'm not sure. With my background in technology, it just depends
[15:58] on the infrastructure that's in place. And from what I understand, even with the previous
[16:04] technology specialist, we were on borrowed time at that time. And he just needed in phases.
[16:11] And this is another part of the phase. Because he couldn't afford to do it all at one time.
[16:19] So if that's been done in five years, I think we run environments that are 10 years old. So
[16:23] just being five years old doesn't necessarily mean to be that it's...
[16:26] I have no idea how old it is. I just know it's more than...
[16:29] Sure. And as Mr. Pigley said, it is no direct impact on the district. It's an R&P. It's a request for these.
[16:36] So the district can decide to move forward or not, but if we don't get inside of the funding window,
[16:43] we lose the opportunity for funding.
[16:46] So my question is, is if we approve this, does that immediately approve the project? Or does that
[16:59] So, once the bid are in, and the person is awarded the bid, the district can, and anytime
[17:06] she's not designed a contract, does it come in the front of the board again as well
[17:12] I'm asking?
[17:14] Yes, if that's what you want, like it's not required she wants you to approve it, but
[17:19] if that's what you want, then of course the superintendent will do what the board asks.
[17:25] So, yes sir, that's what you want, I mean, you're asking the same questions I asked, I mean,
[17:30] I mean, I asked my specific question with this is am I committing money with this, no?
[17:36] And just idea really simple, does this RFP process, am I committing money, am I committing
[17:42] money?
[17:43] I'm going to be buying something.
[17:44] I just want to apply that.
[17:45] And so, and the short answer is well, I'm not committing money, I'm just requesting bids.
[17:50] Like a car, a car, you know, it should be telling us how much costs I can drive away, right?
[17:54] So that was where my first piece was used, I don't have money to commit.
[17:58] So, but to have the bidding process need to be inside the window because I believe the
[18:03] window is like a five-year window on e-rate so, you know, it could be multiple years before
[18:08] we get a chance to look at e-rate again.
[18:10] Well, our budget though might be multiple years before it had afforded an e-rate product
[18:14] too, but it doesn't have to know what we have available to know what's available.
[18:20] And if we choose not to do it this fiscal year, it doesn't expire as long as you stay within
[18:25] the window you can see a little forward when you can afford to do it, but you have to get into
[18:29] funding window. My biggest concern right now is getting in a big infrastructure project that's
[18:39] going to cost a significant amount of money with the current physical, current physical situation
[18:44] we're in. Right. It doesn't seem like a necessarily smart move unless we're having significant outages
[18:49] or issues with the network right now. So I can assure you that it's not like a regular
[18:54] or construction project, a public budget, it's not like that.
[18:59] So, you don't have to worry about change orders
[19:02] that will cost you more, not with this type of project.
[19:06] And because the federal government is backing whatever percent
[19:09] that it's going to back, those are guaranteed funds
[19:11] to the district and we've had no problems in the past.
[19:15] But let's just say that it cost 120,000 dollars.
[19:19] Let's just say that the district has to pay 46,000
[19:22] and just arbitrary numbers.
[19:24] You don't have to do this now.
[19:26] It can be done next this school year,
[19:29] but if you missed the funding window,
[19:30] you missed the funding window.
[19:32] So I guess the imperative of putting it on the agenda
[19:35] is to get inside of the funding window.
[19:37] So when the district isn't in a position
[19:39] within the next year or two,
[19:41] we could move forward if the district decides to do that.
[19:44] But if you missed the funding window,
[19:45] you can't do anything.
[19:51] The Russell Ford feels that, you know,
[19:53] I'm okay with, you know, approving an RFP,
[19:57] but considering our current situation,
[19:59] I don't know that I would be okay with us going forward
[20:02] with spending $46,000 in that case without,
[20:06] at least knowing that we're having major issues
[20:08] with our network and that it's truly justified
[20:11] having some evidence based on that
[20:14] and I don't know if we need our technologists come in
[20:16] and talk about it or something like that
[20:18] but I would prefer it to come back in front of a board
[20:21] or approval of the decision that's on approval tonight.
[20:25] He's talking more than I'm talking about.
[20:27] I'm talking about exactly equally approval.
[20:29] Okay, I got you.
[20:33] Hey, Gritty, and just to clarify,
[20:36] you're talking about getting in the funding window,
[20:38] that just means approving the RFP.
[20:40] Yes.
[20:41] It's not committing to a contract.
[20:42] Yes, ma'am.
[20:43] Okay.
[20:47] For me, if I'm wrong, we have board policy on expenditures
[20:51] and what expenditures come before the board,
[20:54] definitely super intense. We do I could take the not price and I'll tell you that right now,
[20:59] but only 10,000. Yeah, I feel like it's not all that high. I mean, I think a lot comes before
[21:06] a board and then we always approve contracts. We hold one board, yeah.
[21:16] Many of them, especially
[21:18] the ones that don't even hit that window are put in a consent under NOU contracts and agreements.
[21:23] Yes.
[21:28] Are there any additional board comments on this or questions? Are there any public
[21:34] comments on this?
[21:38] No. Okay, would any board members like to make a motion regarding this item?
[21:48] I'll make a motion to approve the RFPS submitted so long as no contracts will be bound without
[21:59] award approval. Is there a second? I will second. Thank you. I will do a real call vote.
[22:08] Trustee McIntyre? Aye. Trustee Loeb has his eye. Trustee Anderson? Aye. Trustee Harvey? Aye.
[22:16] Trustee Calves? Aye. Motion passes. We now move on to item 7.3, which is regarding the
[22:26] I know this topic came up just a couple weeks ago.
[22:30] Mr. Bigley, I will go ahead and have a few.
[22:32] Kind of open up our discussion on this night.
[22:34] I do have a comment later, too.
[22:38] So, as you stated, this came to the board
[22:41] at our last four meeting in February,
[22:43] our first four meeting in February,
[22:46] to look at the approval using our developer fee funds
[22:50] for the best part of their developer fee project
[22:52] to KTK, or to KTK project, where we've been seeing patterns in the playground, the playground
[22:59] being the first phase within that. When we've had, there have been a lot of PTC especially
[23:05] meetings with many, with different vendors, for playgrounds, and last meeting we're presented
[23:12] and is attached to this. Through work with parents, and not with parents, with the teachers,
[23:20] with the staff on what the playground could and what ideally look like and you know what would be
[23:26] included in that. So that's that's the information there. This was on agenda tonight to seek
[23:32] board approval. But as I stated earlier on we have not yet fully had our our legalized and fully
[23:40] committed to read our documents and play reviewed the CNS bid right now. The bid to make sure it meets
[23:45] all the requirements and so we want to make sure that it doesn't it stands up to any challenges
[23:50] those come in the future because we are using
[23:52] Pat taxpayer money and they could challenge
[23:54] I think it's for up to 20 years
[23:55] that those those funds could be challenged
[23:57] if they were used,
[23:58] help somebody felt they were used in a corporate.
[24:00] So we want to make sure it stands up to legal scrutiny.
[24:10] Thank you.
[24:13] I'm curious here with this particular item.
[24:16] Would the board like to hear from our
[24:18] presentation prior to our discussion on this tonight?
[24:22] I also will share that's part of that question.
[24:25] Another question for board is Dr. Sanders
[24:27] to put together some notes on bell for fees in general, like how to spend how we collect
[24:33] and what they can be spent on, like in time frame, there's some things like that just
[24:36] as some normal arrangement for the board because it's not every day and not often that
[24:41] we are working with the bell for fees.
[24:44] If they choose it, here's some of you.
[24:46] Yeah, what would you mind going ahead in person to some of that for someone we can hear
[24:50] and then we can chat more?
[24:52] Sure.
[24:53] Getting started, just explaining what the developer fees are.
[24:57] These are fees paid to school districts by property owners and developers, and they
[25:01] are to mitigate the impact created by new development.
[25:05] So we have a lot of people moving in our area, it's going to bring more students to our area,
[25:10] we hope.
[25:11] The fees are there to mitigate the impact of enrollment on the facilities so that the
[25:19] the district can upgrade or modernize the facilities
[25:23] to align with the enrollment of the district.
[25:26] There are three types of fees.
[25:28] We have level one, two, and three school districts.
[25:29] You use level one fees.
[25:32] Level one fees are to fund the construction
[25:35] and reconstruction of school facilities
[25:38] that are necessary to address the impact
[25:40] of new development or more students.
[25:43] The rate is set by the state allocation board
[25:45] and it's done in even number years
[25:47] in the month of January. The taxes are netted on residential and commercial properties within
[25:53] the school districts area. And all of this is under the purview of Ed Code and government code.
[26:00] Ed Code 17620, government code 6595. Some use of developer fees. In general, the law requires
[26:10] that school districts show a reasonable relationship between the impact of the fee and the use of the fee.
[26:17] So, it can be used for refurbishment.
[26:20] Most questions regarding permissible expenditures of
[26:23] the development fees can be answered just by simply asking to questions.
[26:28] The first one, does the work include construction or reconstruction of a school facility?
[26:35] The second one, would the same work have to be done in the absence of student growth?
[26:43] if so, development fees cannot be used.
[26:46] That's just regular maintenance.
[26:52] The law allows fees to include the cost of,
[26:56] attributable, the cost attributable
[26:58] to the increased demand on the facilities
[27:00] by the increased enrollment of the student body.
[27:04] Fees can be imposed to refurbish existing facilities
[27:08] to maintain the existing level of service
[27:11] or achieve an adopted level of service
[27:15] that is consistent with the general plan.
[27:20] Developers may also be used to modernize existing facilities.
[27:25] Yes, if refurbishment is tied to increased demand
[27:29] and necessary to maintain existing levels of service,
[27:34] due to the increased demands caused by increased student enrollment.
[27:38] And the reminder is, it may not be used for routine or deferred maintenance.
[27:51] Yes, and since hours, we've brought it to you all for approval, was tied to increased
[27:58] enrollment of CK.
[28:00] Our new development study includes that, but also the one that the attorney is looking
[28:06] at.
[28:06] The attorneys are aligning that with our former study since they started before the development
[28:11] of our pre-steaded son of us.
[28:13] So it is tied to enrollment of TK modernizing those areas
[28:18] and also tied to increased enrollment at WeMark,
[28:23] but that's going to be under the new study,
[28:25] not under our old study.
[28:32] What's up with you?
[28:33] What's up with you?
[28:34] What's up with you?
[28:34] Thank
[28:38] you for sharing.
[28:40] At this point, I would like to have this potter
[28:43] go up to the podium.
[28:44] You have a comment card for me.
[28:45] I would like to share more with us.
[28:57] My name is Shoshani Potter and I understand the superintendent is recommending this item
[29:02] you've tabled to March 4th and I need the board to understand clearly March 4th is
[29:08] the vendor confirmed last date to secure the summer to the 2026 installation.
[29:15] Tabling to that date is not a neutral delay.
[29:19] It's functionally a no vote on this playground in 2026.
[29:22] There's no margin for error on that date.
[29:26] This is a show already project.
[29:28] It's fully funded, legally compliant, and ready to break ground.
[29:33] Menobus to families has spent four years raising over $40,000.
[29:37] Our PTC has voted unanimously to contribute $48,582 as a gift in place.
[29:46] We've done the work, we're simply asking the board to approve this project before the installation window closes.
[29:54] Any of the state clearly for the record? Any reducing of...
[30:00] That budget. It's not a lower tier option. This would be a project failure. Our vendor has confirmed our current material to labor breakdown. The 184,307 in materials is just over the 50% of the total. Cutting the surfacing flips that ratio, pushing labor over 50% threshold, stripping the district of the same mass eligibility and triggering a mandatory 12 month public bidding
[30:29] cycle. So again, no playground in 2026. The superintendent has also acknowledged that the
[30:36] bathroom organization that was discussed would trigger a GSA review a six to 12 month process.
[30:43] We should not hold a show already community-funded playground hostage to a bathroom project
[30:48] that can't legally begin for a year. I'm asking you to approve them separately if bathrooms
[30:54] is still hard to legal to make. Two things that may come up which have been
[31:01] discussed. First on the budget I want to be clear on how we arrived we being
[31:07] the playground project ever arrived at the scope. Superintendent Fidley set
[31:13] the playground budget at 350,000 and just number and communicated that
[31:17] figure to me directly so that I could give our vineyards an accurate target to
[31:24] designed toward. Our current proposal came in under that at $342,856 pre-tax. This is not a
[31:33] community group asking for more than was planned. This is a project that Superintendent himself
[31:38] scoped and budgeted and is now being reduced essentially moving the goal post. Second, on the
[31:47] pending legal review, my understanding was that that review existed to determine whether the
[31:52] superintendents proposed diversion,
[31:54] staff rooms, fencing are legally compliant at use of fund 25.
[31:59] Again, we should not hold a fully vetted,
[32:01] seam mass-approved, playground hostage
[32:03] to a legal review of a completely different set of projects.
[32:07] I'd also ask the board to consider this.
[32:10] Throughout this process,
[32:12] the computing priorities have shifted from bathrooms
[32:14] and fencing to portables to classroom refurbishment.
[32:18] Whatever form they take, these are future projects.
[32:22] No design, no bid, no DSA approval, no timeline.
[32:27] The playground has all of these things right now, tonight.
[32:32] Ultimately, I want to remind the board of something simple.
[32:35] The families of Sierra Hills have voted with their time, their dollars, for four years in a
[32:40] row.
[32:41] They have shown up.
[32:42] They have raised money.
[32:43] They've fought for this playground.
[32:44] That is the clearest vote of confidence any project can have.
[32:48] I'm asking the board to honor that.
[32:51] We also have a legal duty here under the ADA and Section 504 in the district must approve
[32:57] an equivalent experience for students with disabilities.
[33:00] Excuse me.
[33:01] I hate to interrupt.
[33:02] It's just that with public comment, we can only allow for three minutes.
[33:05] So I will have to, I will have to go ahead and end your comment if there's someone else
[33:12] who would like to speak or go any time, then that's it.
[33:16] Can I give her my sign?
[33:17] Yes.
[33:21] We have a legal duty here, under the ADA and Section 504, this district must provide
[33:27] an equivalent experience for students with disabilities.
[33:31] Our playground is over 40 years old.
[33:33] It's a documented safety liability and a daily physical barrier for our most vulnerable
[33:38] students.
[33:39] functional bathrooms law useful are not an 88 barrier.
[33:44] The laws of clear removed barriers before adding amenities.
[33:48] This outdoor classroom was designed by our teachers
[33:50] to support student regulation at a time when programs and staff have been cut.
[33:56] I'm asking the board to approve the full project scope tonight
[33:59] as a standalone item to secure the installation window,
[34:03] honor four years of community work, and ensure that every child can play
[34:07] alongside their peers this August.
[34:10] I also have a letter that was signed by all of our T.K. and
[34:16] candlestats that I'd like to read, but teachers, I'm sorry, not just the staff.
[34:22] Dear trustees, we the undersigned educators are writing to express our urgent and
[34:27] unanimous support for the kindergarten playground modernization project as
[34:31] currently proposed. After four years of collaborative planning, this project
[34:35] represents the essential outdoor classroom required to support the development and safety needs
[34:40] of our youngest learners. When professional efficacy and classroom extension, the selected
[34:45] design including the toddler garden house created workshop and inclusive play zones was chosen
[34:50] with direct input from our teachers to serve as a high functioning extension of our indoor classrooms.
[34:56] Student regulation by creating distinct interest zones, the design reduces congestion
[35:02] and peer-to-peer conflict, allowing students to return to the classroom regulated and ready to learn.
[35:08] Social and emotional learning, the work stations are sensory-rich quiet zones provide
[35:13] useful environments for students to practice essential social-emotional skills.
[35:18] To safety, liability, and aging infrastructure, our current playground equipment is four years
[35:22] old, doubling its intended lifespan. While we understand that there are other campus needs,
[35:27] such as bathrooms and fencing, we must emphasize that liability.
[35:31] Addressing four-year-olds infrastructure
[35:33] is a safety and maintenance priority
[35:34] that must take precedence over amenities.
[35:38] Functionality. Our current bathrooms
[35:39] are located near feet from the yard
[35:41] and are fully functional.
[35:43] However, place structures are obsolete
[35:44] and present an ongoing safety risk.
[35:48] Three, the fiduciary risk of delay.
[35:50] We are concerned that diverting funds at this stage
[35:52] will force a project back to square one,
[35:54] reducing the budget or delaying the vote
[35:56] past the March 4th price-lock deadline will lead to a significant inflationary cost
[36:00] resulting in the district paying more for a smaller, less-effective play-grown next year.
[36:06] The PTC and the broader community have demonstrated their commitment with the $48,582.73 gift-in-place
[36:13] for the black top. We've urged the board tonight to honor that commitment and are professional
[36:18] leads by approving the full, this part I apologize isn't correct, but the amount for the project
[36:24] School tonight. Respectfully this year, it kills TK and Kendra Gordon's teaching staff
[36:29] and it's signed by all of the teachers and the TK and Kendra teachers and you have that
[36:34] in your path. Thank you. Are there additional public comments on this topic?
[36:49] Brie Austin or I just wanted to one thing you guys were bringing this back on agenda. As you
[36:56] heard Shoshani we are on a very tight deadline this might seem like a really
[37:01] rushed project for you. For us this is not this is four years of communication,
[37:08] of fundraising, of talking to families and asking them what they want. This I
[37:15] think is a perfect opportunity. We are in a phase in our district where things
[37:21] are not going how we want them to. This can change that. Yes, can we save all of our staff? No.
[37:28] Can we give our community an amazing playground to set forth a really great
[37:35] precedent of how amazing we are to increase enrollment? All of those things that we keep talking about,
[37:42] how we bring people in and how are we showing those people that are not in our district? How amazing
[37:47] and we are one better way than an amazing playground
[37:50] that everybody can see as they drive back.
[37:53] Also, I really am concerned that the safety issue
[37:59] has not been brought up more,
[38:01] and the fact that that playground is absolutely
[38:04] not ADA compliant at all.
[38:07] I think it's great that it hasn't been brought up,
[38:10] but I think it's only a matter of time
[38:12] that that is going to be a big issue.
[38:14] We have several children that cannot access our play structures, but we have children that
[38:22] have hurt themselves on those old play structures.
[38:26] So I would say we're kind of on borrowed time if you're looking at it in that regard.
[38:33] This should have happened years ago.
[38:35] If we're talking about upgrading things that are maybe five years old compared to upgrading
[38:40] things that are 40 years old.
[38:42] If not longer because that was essentially maybe moved from this playground, who knows
[38:47] how all the structures are.
[38:49] But I think the biggest issue is this is something that our community and our families have
[38:54] asked for.
[38:55] If you're asking me what's important that the board talks about, if we want people to attend
[39:01] our board meetings, we want buy-in from our community, taking a subject that started so
[39:06] small and the smallest little dream of a PTC to this amazing potential like
[39:12] that's what families want that is what is going to get people to be like wow
[39:16] our district is listening to what we're saying and we are asking to approve
[39:22] this playground thank you thank you there comment are there any additional
[39:28] on how but on the issue.
[39:33] You better push the button.
[39:34] Okay.
[39:37] So I'm Mark with Compan, the vendor.
[39:39] But is there something that I could provide as far as?
[39:43] You can bring the thing up a question.
[39:45] I mean as far as what the legal review.
[39:49] Is it something is there anything I'd provide or offer?
[39:53] More of what they're looking for.
[39:55] Do you know what they're looking for specifically?
[40:01] I'm Mark, I mean, you know, at this point, the date you sent you the email about, you
[40:05] know, just those, you, we, you got the information about the last bit, right?
[40:09] And so that that date I sent it on, I'm going to follow up with Garry, so literally, they're
[40:14] just, like they did the first time they were doing that line by line to make sure all, all
[40:18] the calculations, because they want to make sure it stands up to legal scrupping, because
[40:20] they're the, the other side of this is that maybe, you know, this and the flip-flip
[40:25] doesn't necessarily is if that gets challenged in the future and somebody says yeah you didn't use those
[40:29] you know for fees appropriately the district then becomes responsible for those fees and must pay
[40:32] those back so I'm gonna make sure that it would stand up for legal scrutiny and so we're just
[40:38] we're just trying to make sure because you know we put in my time the district then you know the time
[40:42] I've been in district 12 13 years we've done a CNS one other time project and I wasn't okay I was
[40:48] involved in whatsoever so we're just making sure it's it's not a it's not a project that we did
[40:53] a lot of. So it's not something where it's fluent in 10 years. You are, um, yeah. I'm
[40:58] like, I'm not in question for Mark, but should this, uh, should this go to the March 4th
[41:06] board meeting? You did, you did bear by with me that in March 4th day. So like that evening,
[41:10] if we shot you an email and said, yeah, to go, we, we would, we would be, we would guess.
[41:17] Yes. I understand. I understand skitter teeth.
[41:22] No, I'm just going to be very quick.
[41:24] Thank you.
[41:25] You're stern or Pacific.
[41:28] But I'm going to be very important.
[41:31] We're going to have a lot of fun.
[41:33] Are
[41:37] there more comments or questions on this item?
[41:45] You guys are going to have a lot of fun.
[41:56] So I mean, I feel a little bit uneasy just because of maybe how the process and how it's being presented is a little bit confusing.
[42:07] So normally if a project comes up, you know, we'll get information from the district.
[42:14] It will be in the board agenda and then there's a recommendation from the district about what action the district thinks we should take.
[42:22] And so knowing that we have some pot of these developer fees and it has, you know, restrictions
[42:29] on what it should be used for, I understand all of that, but, I mean, just in the letter,
[42:36] there's a couple things that fencing, which has also been brought up as a safety concern
[42:40] and as a priority.
[42:41] And we've had teachers and staff come talk about fencing, we afford to say that too.
[42:47] And so, but we could afford fencing before so like fencing has been brought up and then also the bathrooms.
[42:55] I guess I would fill a lot more comfortable with more information about the development fund.
[43:02] And if there's, there were other projects referred to, if there's like a list of what has been prioritized or what we're spending the money on and where this falls on that list for the developer fund.
[43:15] and then also what the district recommendation is,
[43:18] because right now we have the PTC, which I love,
[43:21] and I appreciate it very much,
[43:23] but they're coming forward,
[43:24] presenting this information to the board,
[43:26] but we're not getting a district recommendation.
[43:29] And so, like, this is district money,
[43:33] school district money that we have to spend,
[43:36] and I don't know what this is,
[43:37] the top priority project based on need and maintenance
[43:41] and or whatever projects are planned or we afford them all and then the other thing I guess is
[43:50] none of the costs were in the agenda at all and so we have a packet that was provided to us
[43:57] from the PTC which looks like it's helpful but it was waiting for us here tonight and none of it
[44:03] was put in the agenda for the public. So for us to spend that much money without it being in the
[44:10] agenda has like a transparency issue I think. And so I had no idea that there was, it was on the
[44:19] table to approved like 330,000 I think is what it is. I had no idea that was on the table tonight.
[44:27] I think it's even more. I think it's like 360 something. Okay, so the taxes. So I guess how it's come
[44:35] to us hasn't been the clear normal path. And so it's making me question what's going on. And why?
[44:44] And then I also have lots of questions about the funding from donations. And so I don't really
[44:51] know how this whole project's being funded. There's 48,000 from the TTC,
[44:56] 360-360-S or so.
[45:00] We might be asked to fund, but I thought there was another donor out there. And like, what happens if that falls through? What's the status of that? Like, I feel like I need a breakdown of all the funds and whatever, where everything's coming from. I
[45:20] think that those are kind of the main things, but I feel uncomfortable with it right now. Not that I don't think it's a good project. If very well could be. I just, it's a lot of money.
[45:32] And I know this has been something that has been worked on for a long time and I really
[45:38] appreciate it.
[45:39] But we have to look at all of the district spending and our budget and so I just have some
[45:46] questions and concerns that I feel like I need some more comfort to feel good about this
[45:52] project.
[45:56] Echo, some of your sentiments, I honestly wasn't aware that this was a project that was
[46:04] going to come to the board with a request for a major amount of funding. I may have heard
[46:11] echoes of it as a PTC fundraisers and, you know, me not knowing how much a playground
[46:20] costs of like, okay, PTC is going to raise all the funds for a playground. So I wasn't aware
[46:26] that it was going to come before the board and tell, you know, as of the last couple of months.
[46:31] And it also makes me a little nervous because I also would like to have a little bit more transparency, I think, as to the amount that the district is being asked to spend and how those developed rupees could potentially be spent on things that are already addressed in some of our improvement plans and we have long term infrastructure plans that we've been looking at.
[46:59] we have been talking about safety items for years now and those have come before the board like
[47:06] fences.
[47:09] And so, and I totally recognize and understand that this particular item,
[47:15] we have an opportunity to have it funded under developer fees because we have a unique situation
[47:22] where we have an influx of students through our new TK program. That's not lost on me and I think
[47:28] it could be a great opportunity. I just want to make sure that we're currently vetting all
[47:34] opportunities and uses for development developer fees, maybe even type that in flux of students
[47:41] and that we are addressing the priorities that we've already set within our districts
[47:47] and meet those needs and this could be it but I don't know that I can I can't make the decision tonight
[47:54] not especially not about our legal team approving it, it's a big ask and I had heard you know
[48:04] I think in the last meeting and again tonight this is a publicly funded project but I you know
[48:10] 14% of the project is coming from the public and the rest is coming from our developer fees.
[48:16] So this is a district funded project that we have to think pretty long and hard about
[48:21] whether or not it's the appropriate use of our funds, I think.
[48:28] Dr. Sandra, I have a couple of questions.
[48:30] So regarding the funds that exist, I hear that there's kind of two things that are in place.
[48:37] One, that was submitted because of the enrollment increase in ZK and then you've also
[48:42] sure that a separate proposal has gone forward with we more because of the increase in enrollment there.
[48:48] That's not tied to this current existing money that we're talking about.
[48:52] That's not.
[48:52] Okay. So based on that, are you able to share with the board? I personally don't even know
[48:58] how much total is in this fund. Are you able to share that? That was about $1.9 million.
[49:04] Okay. And all of that money, as it is currently written, is allocated specifically to the increase
[49:11] with TK? No. No. Okay. So is there a breakdown within that? So that part of money is district
[49:19] money. There can be spent, there can be spent for modernization and reconstruction or construction
[49:29] that is within the legal parameters of egg-coated government code. When we brought the idea
[49:38] of the finishing and the toilets and all of that, we've said no more than 500,000 miles for
[49:47] the whole thing. And that was the conversation that we brought to the board. At the time, I personally
[49:55] wasn't aware of anything else that was going on with the playground. I wasn't aware. And that was
[50:02] something that this would be intended. I had discussed good use for the funds if we could get it
[50:08] approved through legal and it was an alignment with ed code and government code. But the totality of the
[50:15] fun is that the discretion of the board in alignment with the people.
[50:31] Are there other board comments on this?
[50:35] I know we're going to, you know, it's going by legal and stuff that I think we're hearing about the,
[50:40] when you were talking about the standards about the uses of the fun that it was about,
[50:46] you know, cannot be used for routine or deferred maintenance.
[50:50] And I keep talking here in about it's a 40-year-old playground and my question is,
[50:54] This is just a pertinence that we've been doing all the time ago to get an obeying aid
[50:57] compliant.
[50:58] And is it something that we're not going to be able to get approved?
[51:02] That's why legal is looking at it.
[51:04] That is the purpose that we take you to legal.
[51:07] There's also another purpose that it goes to legal.
[51:09] Whenever funds 25 is used, it's highly audited and audited.
[51:14] And so the auditors want every single piece of documentation to support those funds that
[51:22] were spent.
[51:22] So it does have to go to legal. That's one piece they want to see, but they also want to make sure that the district has handled those funds with integrity.
[51:32] So there has to be a purchase order. It has to be district made because they are district funds.
[51:51] Yes, thanks.
[51:57] I'm going to do my best to address as many of those as possible.
[52:02] I think Dr. Sanders just addressed some of them.
[52:04] In December 10th, board meeting, we had our developer fees report to share with the board,
[52:10] and which shared the amount of money that was in our developer fees fund.
[52:13] But at the same time, there was also projects in there,
[52:15] for upcoming projects that we like to project and are basically two major, two categories
[52:22] of projects that we might hold as a visual performing arts projects and the Sierra Hills
[52:26] TKK, Sierra Hills TKKKK project.
[52:32] And so those are the two major projects that were proposed on that December 10th Board meeting.
[52:38] Would they cost, would they cost that we said to not exceed $500,000 of the almost $2 million
[52:44] dollars in the development of these funds.
[52:47] So once the board approved that, we sent that document to our legal to get it approved
[52:54] is does it meet the requirements of can we show increased enrollment, increased use
[52:59] of facilities, does it meet that scrutinization, is this a, is this deferred maintenance, is
[53:04] this a routine maintenance issue or is this a modernization and they did it and they sent
[53:08] back through their opinion and get it to the legal opinion that for the TK can require
[53:14] project for within that GKKinter project, we identified three specific
[53:19] spacing bathrooms and playgrounds. So within that whole project there, we identified
[53:25] those three things within it. So does it meet, does, do these projects meet that
[53:30] screenization? And they said it doesn't, does meet the screenization of it not being
[53:34] a deferred maintenance project. This would be a modernization of that playground.
[53:37] So, above all those. So we've got the criteria from our, from our, the open
[53:41] the legal standpoint for modernization on the TK-Kinder side of it. She said that she
[53:47] did not feel that our WIMAR Hills, the original performing arts project didn't need that
[53:52] scrutinization, so we were no longer pursuing that one because it just didn't need that
[53:57] scrutinization using those developer fee funds. What we were trying to demonstrate in terms
[54:01] of increased activity and use in that was not enough to meet those scrutinizations.
[54:06] So I'm just trying to go down all the questions I've been down on, and I think it's on the current.
[54:13] I think the current development, because the next one is in our next board meeting.
[54:16] So I'm just trying to speak to what we have done.
[54:21] As was stated by Trustee Harvey, and I quote, that, you know, Fencing has been something,
[54:26] I want to say, probably six years ago, that was brought up, and we were,
[54:29] it was right before COVID, is we were actually looking and we were walking sites
[54:33] to do more safety fencing and doing it at that time,
[54:36] then COVID hit and that shut that down a lot of funds
[54:39] that we're going to use for that got spent elsewhere.
[54:41] So the fact that, and that was coming out of our ESR fund,
[54:44] no, that was pre- ESR.
[54:46] So that was just coming out of general funds we had funds.
[54:48] And so since then, you know, we've used funds in other ways.
[54:51] We've not had to do that.
[54:52] And with our budget where it's at, you know,
[54:54] we just not have the ability to spend an extra $50,000
[54:57] on fencing and a site.
[54:59] So the fact that we could use and develop a fee for this
[55:02] was a great opportunity to do a project that the board's been looking to do for, you know,
[55:06] six, seven years, six years, one and six years now.
[55:10] So that was a part of why that was put in there and saying, you know, it can be part of
[55:13] that, but the revitalization piece or that modernization of bringing safety piece for our
[55:17] little, into that project as well.
[55:20] The cost not being in the agenda was done purposefully.
[55:24] It was a thoughtful choice of mine because it had not yet been approved by legal counsel.
[55:28] I didn't want to give the perception that this was already approved and I was ready to
[55:31] ago. My purpose in there was it had the information about the action this little bit of look at,
[55:38] but we were waiting for legal counsel and I'm trying to give it to as far as I could that I did not
[55:41] and I mean I did share it with this moderate and she she you know and before that I'm going to
[55:47] recommend that this did not be voted on tonight because when I could make a conscious say that you
[55:52] had time to review the full proposal and just a few hours before we received it. I have an email
[55:58] Today, if I don't get back tomorrow, I'm going to do a phone call again just to see where
[56:03] that is and then what we can expect for a timeline to get that back from legal counsel.
[56:07] So I did purposely not include it for that reason.
[56:10] So I did not want to give a perception that this is good, it's already no report whatsoever.
[56:15] And then I would have had it ready for me and I would have updated the community through
[56:18] our board of genus.
[56:19] I know we tried to have all our documentation on our genus before we put them out, but I
[56:23] and not want to have misleading information or it's like
[56:25] that wasn't fully ready.
[56:32] So the
[56:35] ADA compliance piece that it knows,
[56:39] I mean, there's some validity to those as terms of,
[56:43] we've had to cut barriers into our,
[56:45] cut the holes into the barriers that go around that playground
[56:48] to allow for mobility pieces.
[56:50] The bark that's in there was actually replaced
[56:52] seven, eight years ago to bring it to an ADA compliance.
[56:55] You know, it's not ideal, ideal, but it is, it still does it, it does bring that, it brings that up.
[57:01] But again, the welds on some of that equipment is probably older than I am.
[57:05] That's not lost on some of the equipment, came from plaster holes in the welds until that equipment is older than I am.
[57:12] You talk about the money, the developer's fees, how much is total in there.
[57:18] And then I think part of the reason this is feeling to use words here is that that rushed
[57:23] or that just such a short time frame that turned around is we only got access to this project
[57:29] in those developer speeds in December, you know.
[57:32] So it was one of those pieces where we were approached by PTC and had some great conversations
[57:36] like, you know, they were talking about using prop 2 money, which doesn't fit our needs.
[57:41] It was able to make work and so it's like happy to make this flush and I said, well you
[57:45] know, we are looking at our, because we don't know that with county, um, financial
[57:50] people, and they share with us some of the different ways that other counties are
[57:53] accessing their development, under other school districts are accessing their
[57:56] development fees, and not looking at total enrollment population, but we have specific,
[58:00] like small portions of population enrollment, which was like, okay, that does, that is
[58:05] something that we're, that we're seeing is like a special ticket going from 20 to 40
[58:09] We've been on 65 over a year, a period of five years.
[58:13] That's a significant increase, and a significant drop in age.
[58:16] And this was shared glass board meeting in Illinois.
[58:18] We now are having, it used to just have to serve some four,
[58:21] but mostly five year olds, but now it's serving some three year old,
[58:24] you know, four or five year old students.
[58:26] So, since we only got that access to that money,
[58:31] that makes us feel more rushed because it was something that,
[58:35] you know, PTC has been looking at, I mean,
[58:36] I mean, this is the $40, $40 plus thousand of those dollars
[58:40] in from two years of John DeFonts.
[58:43] So this is something that they've been trying to look at
[58:45] for years, and I was in a,
[58:47] I'll use, I'll blame myself, but in I evitate
[58:49] in terms of cost of playgrounds.
[58:51] You know, like, oh, hey, you know, $40,000 a year,
[58:54] $40,000 next year, we're buying a new playground.
[58:56] You know, and then they install one of the park,
[58:58] you can start talking to people,
[58:59] you start looking at catalogs, you go,
[59:01] I can afford like a very good round.
[59:03] You get a problem.
[59:03] You think so, don't really behave like a,
[59:05] This is going to take a lot more in a lot of different pieces and obviously we don't have
[59:09] a general fund that can do that.
[59:11] For example, another look at this aspect is look at movements right now, like the school
[59:17] district there.
[59:17] They had a big community development that's being built, like they're building a whole
[59:22] development.
[59:22] So they're actually, they're landlords right now, they're getting a whole new school because
[59:27] of this huge influx of students because they get into that, but it's to meet that need
[59:31] of students, right?
[59:32] We can't meet the population that we're going to be projected to have to serve.
[59:38] So we are having bigger population out on our TK, and that's what this is doing is to
[59:43] help serve that population.
[59:47] But there is an incentive that we, as a board, or I think comment, or even a PCC, can do
[59:53] about, there is that window, just as we did with our solar and our solar environment.
[1:00:01] There are some timelines. If you want to get it installed by a day, you've got to have it accrued by a day. If you want to get this time by a day, you've got to get this accrued by a day. So there's a rush or there's not. There's the other side of whatever happens to that decision. So I think I think I played on project. I'm fully supportive. You asked for a district recommendation. I'm fully in support of it. We've already been in communication with some other builders to look at possible costs.
[1:00:29] of fencing possible costs like just round numbers
[1:00:33] of bathrooms not that it's directly.
[1:00:36] It indirectly affects this because I need to know that
[1:00:38] within the other $137,000 that is left
[1:00:42] in that $500,000 can I get the,
[1:00:46] what I envision is the bathroom needs that's needed
[1:00:48] over there and can I get the,
[1:00:51] and the fencing that has been a district priority
[1:00:53] for safety for six plus years.
[1:00:56] And so making sure that that can fit in there.
[1:00:58] So, I think it'll be tight, but I think the fact that we don't have the Walmart project in there, I think it is something that is doable.
[1:01:05] We're talking about maintenance, you know, the things as well.
[1:01:11] So, that's where we're planning. We're scheduling any walkthrough, purchasing, just to get, like, again, an idea.
[1:01:16] I have, I have our aims to back and forth with a company that does pre-built, set in place, bathrooms, that way you just connect electricity, connect to it.
[1:01:26] The difference between the bathroom center there, currently, and the bathroom center, we're
[1:01:29] projecting is right now the bathrooms are on the outside, like the external bathrooms
[1:01:34] are outside.
[1:01:35] You have to go around.
[1:01:35] We don't have our t-cares in danger of that.
[1:01:37] They go into this classroom to use the restrooms, which could possibly take eyes off the
[1:01:41] yard.
[1:01:42] And if that's not what happened anymore, when we're on recess, we send them directly to the
[1:01:47] bathroom.
[1:01:48] I used to call the first name of the bathroom, so they're further away, and part of the TK,
[1:01:54] And fortunately in the classroom we have TK size that one because that's a part of
[1:01:58] the code now that we have type of facilities that need the size requirements.
[1:02:02] So this would lower how I envision this as it goes in the grass between the two buildings.
[1:02:07] And it directly opens onto the playground so there's not that gap of sitting around it directly.
[1:02:12] It opens on to where the playground would be.
[1:02:14] But again, I'm not I'm not tying those up any of these three together and it is correct that
[1:02:19] know with these other projects, it could trigger DSA looking at it and know other ADA increments.
[1:02:25] It doesn't have that, and I'm not expecting it. I the part that is affecting me in this is
[1:02:30] I'm looking at the total budget size of it and making sure that I feel comfortable with that.
[1:02:34] And so I love this, I really love the process that gone through to put it together,
[1:02:39] the input that they've sought, they've reached out to multiple vendors, you know, they've gotten
[1:02:42] and perform a lot of different sources.
[1:02:44] So, you know, it is a lot of money to do,
[1:02:47] and it's a $300,000, $60,000 piece,
[1:02:50] but it's coming also out of a bunch that's $1.9 million.
[1:02:53] It could be, you know, you could go over that $500,000,
[1:02:56] you know, with like change order,
[1:02:57] and you would be allowed to, you're not limited
[1:02:59] to that $500,000, I'm not asking you to.
[1:03:02] I'm just stating that as a fact.
[1:03:06] So, I died in the fight,
[1:03:07] and if you guys wanna look at your list of questions,
[1:03:09] if I get the dressing, I try to get through them all, it's perfect.
[1:03:13] Yeah, I just had a follow-up question. I know that our last meeting we did have a conversation
[1:03:18] that there was a potential community member who was looking to donate some money and I'm just
[1:03:24] curious in terms of the amount of money if there's a cap like where that stands.
[1:03:32] So, I'm not the one who's been in directly communication with that. I was in an early
[1:03:36] communication. There's been other direct communication outside. We've not been able to get something
[1:03:41] in writing that says we will, we will. But they already certain amount, they're doing certain
[1:03:46] amount. When I did reach out to the PTC and said if we had to fund it at a lower level, would
[1:03:52] that person be willing to? And I'm just going to summarize the words and you tell me if I'm wrong,
[1:03:57] but basically that was a bigger amount than they were expecting. But they're still working through
[1:04:01] like PG&E contacts in their own piece
[1:04:04] to want to fill a gap, but there's a gap.
[1:04:08] But we don't have anything specific in writing
[1:04:10] that would say that they will absolutely do it.
[1:04:12] So at this point, besides what PTC is already there,
[1:04:16] you guys already committed to this project.
[1:04:19] As you stated, it would be ages to maybe $5.25
[1:04:23] of funded project.
[1:04:26] And we've heard tonight, legal data
[1:04:29] prove the playground it met the criteria for modernization. So what is with legal currently
[1:04:35] is the use of the CMAS contract and is that correct? The specific bit itself doesn't meet the,
[1:04:43] there has to be a 51, 49% you know difference of materials versus labor and how to have it and
[1:04:50] that's how the majority and the way and how I understand it and again the spake speak this but the way
[1:04:56] it was explained to me and I understood it was the way the chunk of it was grouped, specifically
[1:05:01] the ground covering, made it appear at least that there was a labor went up more like 64,
[1:05:08] it was a 64, and the labor side of it. So it was re-explained and put out and basically
[1:05:14] read that. So we just have been having the bid in front of them again just to make sure that
[1:05:19] they're going lie down in my lie, I am making sure that it matches with the CMS contract
[1:05:23] again and meets those criteria. But if the CVS itself is in my limited knowledge is not the issue,
[1:05:30] it's just making sure that the bid meets the requirements of being a CMS which allows you to
[1:05:34] bypass some bidding processes and piggyback and doing all that kind of stuff.
[1:05:39] Okay, so we're waiting on Neagle to review what we've submitted under the CMS to ensure that we're
[1:05:48] submitting it correctly and it follows the correct criteria. That is correct.
[1:05:53] Okay.
[1:05:57] I would like to make a motion. I appreciate you answering a lot of
[1:06:03] those questions because that solved a lot of the questions that I had really
[1:06:08] good to this project. I would like to make a motion that's the board approved
[1:06:13] this project pending legal review meaning if legal comes back and says what we
[1:06:22] have submitted, meets the criteria that we need under CMAS, then we can go ahead and
[1:06:28] move forward, and then we don't have to be up against it at length. So my
[1:06:32] motion would be to approve, so long as legal approves the contract, that's
[1:06:43] So my concern is the amount of involvement that the district has not had in a project.
[1:06:56] So I love the project and I support the project.
[1:07:00] But it does need to be a lot more hands on with the district.
[1:07:05] So, I understand that you have a vendor that you can order from, well nothing should
[1:07:12] be followed without a purchase order.
[1:07:14] I understand that PTC has funds that they're willing to donate, the money needs to be donated
[1:07:19] upon approval of the project once legal comes back.
[1:07:23] It doesn't need to be just sitting out there.
[1:07:25] So if we are going to move forward with the project pending legal approval, then there are
[1:07:30] other things that need to happen as well.
[1:07:32] And some things we can get, like, stick it in insurance, and we can get that link all
[1:07:38] of that.
[1:07:39] But I'm really concerned that the district needs to have a really more involved effort
[1:07:45] in the project and not be so much in the background.
[1:07:50] And we say, like, a purchase order.
[1:07:51] I mean, they approved it.
[1:07:53] And like, we came back and said it and said, yes, we couldn't just develop a purchase order
[1:07:57] then because there are other meat.
[1:07:59] So I'll just say what you said so the legal says it's okay that's fine, but a
[1:08:06] purchaser because of the cost of it and our processes and policies that we
[1:08:12] have in place in the industry, if it's more than $500, it provokes a
[1:08:18] purchaser and it is. So for whatever it is that needs to be ordered, it needs to be
[1:08:25] communicated to the district so that the district can issue a purchase or a
[1:08:29] purchase order is a promise to pay if you order something without a purchase
[1:08:33] order the district is not obligated to pay for. So that's all I'm saying. Like we
[1:08:37] need to know what we're paying for 100% of the time.
[1:08:43] Does it make sense?
[1:08:47] Honestly no. So I'm a little confused because I know that we have had many
[1:08:54] projects. I'll go to HVAC, for example, right. HVAC came to us as a proposed cost, but I don't
[1:09:00] know how much each white, you know, I saw estimates, but I don't know how much each line, bold,
[1:09:07] nut, unit cost, right? And when we make the motion here to move forward with the project we knew,
[1:09:16] it's going to cost us X number of dollars, right? Which is the same thing that we have here.
[1:09:21] So, what I understand is that the board would make a motion to move forward with an expenditure
[1:09:31] of $342,856 plus tax and then we would move forward based on that motion, get the purchase
[1:09:42] order, sign the contract, do all of that, but the board has already approved the district
[1:09:47] administration to do that option. So I am confused when David asks you is that
[1:09:56] what we need to move forward and you're saying no what do we need that. So what
[1:10:01] I'm saying you're correct. Okay I think we said the same thing say that differently.
[1:10:04] So what I would not want the vendor to place an order without a purchase order from
[1:10:12] the district. That's all I'm saying. That's it. That's it. So the border proves it but
[1:10:17] But I wouldn't want the benefit to say, okay, the board is approved, let's just go forward.
[1:10:20] It needs to come through the proper search and the check.
[1:10:23] I don't think so.
[1:10:25] I don't think so.
[1:10:25] I got it.
[1:10:26] I got it.
[1:10:27] So my question right looking at you is now they approved this, if you, I'm not even saying
[1:10:33] this project is going to approve, you know, and there's a lot of people that talk.
[1:10:36] But let's say they, they make this, you, we have the line item who order, right, right,
[1:10:45] we have all this and it's up. If they do that tonight, we hear back from legal tonight.
[1:10:51] So tomorrow, and we have email, we're good to know, with that, you could build a purchase
[1:10:57] order, correct, that we could sign, and then we would send to the vendor and that's what
[1:11:01] that would be.
[1:11:02] So the vendor use will give us a pay-up, you know what a pay-up means, right?
[1:11:07] You may call it invoice.
[1:11:09] Yeah, okay.
[1:11:09] So projects, projects that you can't know, project usually come in pay applications usually like like the big project that we did with solar and the hands.
[1:11:18] So the usually vendor gives us a pay up.
[1:11:20] We ensure a purchase order off the pay up or invoice whatever you want to call it.
[1:11:24] But yes, it is a process that happens along with an approved maximum amount unless there's a change that has to come back to the board for proof.
[1:11:34] So, yes, you're saying the same thing, it's just, I didn't want to give the impression that
[1:11:38] it's okay to go ahead and start ordering without a purchaser.
[1:11:43] Very tight with this, which is good.
[1:11:45] That's just fair.
[1:11:46] I like it when you've got my eyes and cross my teeth, that's good.
[1:11:51] All right, so we have a motion that's been made.
[1:11:54] I just wanted to share with the board.
[1:11:55] I believe that the total with tax is 360,000, 56,000, so just putting that out there.
[1:12:03] Is there a second to testing Harvey's promotion?
[1:12:09] I'm not writing a second, but I do have additional comment and
[1:12:12] session like before you do the roll call, please.
[1:12:15] Okay.
[1:12:19] I think I feel like Mr. Figley answered a lot of my questions, too.
[1:12:27] I think what I'm still feeling held up about is I don't feel like this was
[1:12:32] ready for approval tonight. And like what Mr. Figgley had said, he doesn't need to put the cost
[1:12:38] in the agenda on purpose. And it sounds like a good project, having the comfort of district
[1:12:45] involvement and a district recommendation on the agenda, saying that district recommends
[1:12:50] approval of this is more in line with everything else we approve. And I feel like I need that
[1:12:56] backing, but it's the main thing is the cost. We did not have that in the agenda at all,
[1:13:02] and so I don't feel like that is just for transparency purposes. I would feel more comfortable
[1:13:09] if we waited.
[1:13:13] It's not a project at all. Just for the correct process, I feel like we would still
[1:13:20] We'll make it through the next board meeting, which is next week.
[1:13:27] We're going back to the motion at hand.
[1:13:30] Is there someone who would like to second the existing motion that Trustee Harvey has put in place?
[1:13:40] Would someone instead like to amend the motion?
[1:13:45] We don't have a second.
[1:13:47] It just fails.
[1:13:48] It just fails.
[1:13:49] Okay.
[1:13:52] Would someone like to create a new motion?
[1:13:54] I will make a motion to table this
[1:13:56] until the next board meeting.
[1:13:59] Okay, so second floor is back to motion.
[1:14:13] Is there, if there's something missing from that
[1:14:16] that you guys want to see, let me know.
[1:14:18] I'm open to amending it.
[1:14:20] Do we, yeah, or maybe we need to have more discussion.
[1:14:23] I think we may.
[1:14:23] Like we're not moving.
[1:14:24] So like we're still using some conversation.
[1:14:26] And I definitely don't disagree
[1:14:29] that there's a transparency issue here with the not being in the agenda, and that's, that's my one sticking point from moving forward with the motion tonight, and I don't know what, I don't know exactly, you know, how to, how to move beyond that.
[1:14:46] And I also don't want to put us in a position where we're not approving a project that we shouldn't be forward with if we so choose.
[1:14:53] That being said, it does sound to me like if we did table it.
[1:15:00] Today, next week, and we approved it next week, so if we chose, that we could still get the order in, that it's going to our teeth, and still be okay for this year. And so,
[1:15:17] I think we should prep all purposes of transparency, probably table it for next week and make sure that we do things properly.
[1:15:34] All right, so we have a second at this point.
[1:15:38] I am going to do a role call for this motion, which is again to pay all this to our Wednesday
[1:15:49] March, Wednesday meeting for discussion and action to be honest.
[1:15:54] Um, I will start our roll call vote on this and um, Trustee Lopez is I, Trustee Anderson.
[1:16:01] All right.
[1:16:03] Trustee Harvey.
[1:16:04] Hi.
[1:16:05] Trustee Calvis.
[1:16:06] Hi.
[1:16:06] And Trustee McIntyre.
[1:16:08] It
[1:16:11] doesn't really matter.
[1:16:13] On the stage.
[1:16:14] Oh, please.
[1:16:16] Yeah.
[1:16:16] Just written the thing.
[1:16:17] We said that.
[1:16:18] Okay.
[1:16:18] We do that.
[1:16:19] All right.
[1:16:21] So motion passes.
[1:16:23] is four votes and one.
[1:16:27] I have a sentence.
[1:16:29] Thank you.
[1:16:31] We will go ahead and move on to item eight in our agenda, which is board pending comments.
[1:16:38] Do any board members have comments?
[1:16:41] I do.
[1:16:42] For our March 4th meeting or next meeting, I'd like to request, I believe, our second interim is going to be in the agenda.
[1:16:50] And I'd like to request on the second interim presentation that we have numbers that not only reflect what of course we have already loaded on which are the layoffs, but I would like to see a second interim report if the rest of the board members also would like to see it with some different perspectives.
[1:17:11] So if we could get a second interim report showing one wellness employee brought back in and then I would like to see another one showing wellness one wellness and one library FTE brought back in and then I'd like to see a report with all of wellness and library brought back in.
[1:17:36] So that we at least have some idea of how that would impact our numbers based on where we're at second interim, because I believe that our second interim would be presented based on what the board has approved, which would be all of the layoffs that we had approved, but I would like to see what it would look like if we brought some of those positions back in.
[1:17:59] So, that's what I would like to see if everyone else would like to as well.
[1:18:03] Before we get consensus, if I knew it would be a clarification,
[1:18:06] if there is a consensus, I could do not a whole second error,
[1:18:11] but just a multi-year projection with those numbers in it, maybe?
[1:18:14] Yeah, sorry.
[1:18:15] We just hold both.
[1:18:17] With the second and from numbers, can we see?
[1:18:21] Multi-year.
[1:18:22] Multi-year.
[1:18:22] Yeah, so we can see how it impacts our budget and how it would impact our reserves, really.
[1:18:31] I really like hearing to you. I'm wondering if the rest of the board is comfortable with that as well.
[1:18:38] I think that's a great idea. Great request. And then if Mr. Figley has anything else he wants to show us, like if you know for positions or recommendations, I'm glad to see that as well.
[1:18:52] So as much info we can get about budget would be print.
[1:18:56] Thank you for that flexibility to add those up.
[1:18:58] Yes.
[1:19:04] All right.
[1:19:05] Any other additional board comments?
[1:19:09] I have one item that I would like to bring up a few months ago we discussed talking about
[1:19:19] having an audit of our special education program and taking a look at how we were running
[1:19:25] know what we're doing and potentially bringing in an outside company to review that.
[1:19:32] And I believe that that certainly did look at that and there was some decent expense with that
[1:19:38] and we haven't looked at it since and I think it would be worth our while to kind of take a look at
[1:19:44] that, look at some potential other options. I think we have a lot of expense going into our special
[1:19:51] education that is hurting our general budget. And I think it's something that we shouldn't
[1:19:56] drop. Not necessarily recommend it, we spend a ton of money on that, but I think it's something
[1:20:01] that we should continue to look into and try to optimize it. And I think it's something we should
[1:20:06] bring back to discuss and potentially give Mr. Douglas the direction.
[1:20:12] Trustee Anderson, would you want that to be as more of an informational type of thing or on an action?
[1:20:18] I know.
[1:20:19] It
[1:20:23] would be more about informational to understand what the, what Mr. Bigley got back from his
[1:20:29] investigation on that, that way we can then potentially provide some feedback on additional
[1:20:34] information that we can get by believe I'm understanding the process right, provide direction
[1:20:42] on further actions down the road.
[1:20:46] How does the rest of the floor feel about that coming to agenda?
[1:20:55] Okay.
[1:20:57] Then we will add that as a informational item signature meeting or if any other board members
[1:21:05] should have comment.
[1:21:06] What
[1:21:12] is that said?
[1:21:13] We are moving on to our final item, which is to adjourn item 9.
[1:21:19] We are at the conclusion of our meeting and then we are going to adjourn.
[1:21:23] I'll make a vote for the adjournment.
[1:21:25] Is there a second?
[1:21:26] I will second.
[1:21:27] Okay, let's go ahead and do a roll call vote.
[1:21:31] Trustee Anderson.
[1:21:33] Trustee Harvey.
[1:21:34] Aye.
[1:21:35] Trustee Powell does.
[1:21:36] Aye.
[1:21:36] Trustee Mackentenner.
[1:21:38] Aye.
[1:21:38] Trustee Lopez is also.
[1:21:40] Aye.
[1:21:40] Motion passes.
[1:21:42] Meeting is adjourned at 6.24 p.m.