Regular Meeting

No content available.

[208] SPEAKER_30: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you for attending the May 16th Board of Education meeting for the Newark Unified School District. Members of the public who wish to address the board are asked to fill out a guest speaker form located in the rear of the room. Please state your name clearly for the record. Speakers are limited to three minutes and once per item. And the board cannot respond to items not on the agenda. In closed sessions, we discussed 2.1 through 2.4. No action was taken. We did not get to 2.5, which is the superintendent's evaluation. We will reconvene to closed session after the open session and the towards study session later on tonight and then report out the outcome of that if there's anything to report at the end of that segment. At this point, 5.1, we need approval or modification of the agenda as presented.

[276] Vicenta Ditto: So moved.

[277] SPEAKER_30: I believe there's a couple of polls, right, Superintendent?

[281] Ray Rodriguez: Do you have a couple of polls on the agenda?

[283] SPEAKER_27: We wanted to pull item 9.8 from the agenda.

[288] SPEAKER_30: Pull 9.8, is that going to come back at a later date or just?

[292] SPEAKER_29: Yes, it will be coming back at a future date. It's just not ready for action tonight. Okay.

[297] SPEAKER_30: Anything else? Okay. So 9.8 has been pulled. And Member Rodriguez, are you still moving to approve the agenda?

[306] Ray Rodriguez: Yeah, based on that change.

[308] SPEAKER_30: Okay. Motion by, moved by Member Rodriguez. Is there a second? I'll second. Second by Member Preciado. Please vote. Six ayes, thank you. On to item 6.1, superintendent's update.

[342] SPEAKER_27: So I'd like to start. OK, that's better. I just wanted to start to make the board aware that I have entered into a conversation and beginning to research possibilities for state preschool. There is an application that we would have to complete. We're waiting to hear back. We know that there was one deadline that passed, but in prior years, that application deadline was extended. So we're in the process of researching possibility of looking at state preschool in our district. I just wanted to update the board that we're beginning to ask about that. actually some colleagues that have experience in this area from Hayward Unified have been very helpful in kind of guiding us through this. I think largely because they have a larger area of expertise and staff that do this kind of work. So I just wanted to put that on the radar for the board that we are having some discussions and beginning to explore this idea of state preschool and I know we are interested in expanding some early childhood education options but other than just we're exploring it there's no action or anything yet but I'm gathering information and our team is beginning to find out you know how does that work and what are the options what are the possibilities. So that was really all I had for state preschool just as an update for the board. Any questions from the board on that item?

[438] Nancy Thomas: I hope that we would look ahead to at that in relationship to what we might be able to do with an outside partner such as Cadango?

[447] SPEAKER_27: Yes. Yes. And my understanding is there's probably going to be room for both, largely because most of the rules around state preschool are very specific to, you know, is it a title school? Is there a high percentage of free or reduced lunch? That's generally where they want to start first. And for some of our schools that don't have that same socioeconomic diversity, Kedango might still be an option, but we're kind of holding on moving forward with any of those until we have a clearer picture of what might fit best where, but that is part of our conversation is, you know, we don't want to, we have a great partnership with Kedango. We're not trying to change that, but we're trying to see honestly who fits what school and how can we get more preschool options throughout our district.

[497] Nancy Thomas: Okay. And I think another, thing we need to know or be aware of is whether or not we can maintain the program without transferring money from the general fund to it like we have been with our after school program.

[515] SPEAKER_27: And that would be one of the discussions at the school, for example, that maybe doesn't have the same threshold to meet state preschool, where they would look at a contribution from the parent option, where they would charge a parent something for preschool. And at this point, it's a very early preliminary study, but that's what we're looking at. But I think what we're interested in is full-day preschool is something that we're looking at as well.

[541] SPEAKER_30: Any other questions? Just from when we're exploring that. Also from view from the lens, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Richard, but I think the Governor's May revise has more money allocated for early childhood and safe preschool. So we can utilize that and try to capture that.

[561] SPEAKER_29: There is. We'll get to it when we get to the budget item later on tonight. But it's additional funding in the form of more slots that will be effective for the 18-19 school year. Got it. Thank you.

[575] SPEAKER_27: With no other questions, I'll move to the next item. But just to finish that one out, I think just the idea of expanding preschool options is really going to be beneficial. And I believe somewhat of a longer term solution to help increase enrollment over time and have kids start with us and stay with us is kind of the intent behind that. And reaching kids early is critical. It's really critical.

[600] Ray Rodriguez: It's obvious the state feels the same way.

[604] SPEAKER_27: Yes. So, the second item is just more of an update. I did spend Saturday at a Latino summit that was hosted by the National Hispanic Education Foundation at Santa Clara and went to several sessions on ELD and how to work with second language learners. It was a really great event, very reasonably priced, about $100 for a full day. That included lunch and just got to see a lot of good speakers around how to better reach out to Latino communities, as well as best practice on second language learners and language acquisition, and just some good speakers. And I think my favorite part was probably seeing the young mariachi groups perform starting today and kicking off the day. But just a great opportunity. And I think that as we start really expanding and supporting more of our teachers having more in their toolbox relative to second language learners. They seem to be really interested in partnering with a school like ours and actually talked with one of their executives. They're trying to create a teacher pipeline to help kids that want to become teachers go into that field and offering a real strong foundation of language acquisition. for those teachers in the pipeline. So just a good place to network. And it was a really good conference. I'll share some materials in my Friday update of what that agenda looked like. But it was really a good place for us to connect and be able to make some partners with those foundations who do offer some scholarships. So I did have an eye for that as well. Any questions on the Latino Summit? I'll share that in the packet Friday. But it was a good Saturday. CCE yesterday and today. Assistant Superintendent Salinas and I have been attending a retreat in Oakland with the CCE. We've been spending a lot of time studying really best practice relative to continuous improvement of school districts and schools. So this idea that how do we just continually make things better and what are some of the top research elements to continue improvement. It's moving kind of slow right now, but I think part of it is we have an opportunity through the CCE pilot to maybe do something different. And I think that one of the things that kept coming up in the last two days at the summit was this idea of how do we have a more meaningful and shorter LCAP that's easy for everybody to understand. In the current version, it's 75 to 100 pages. It's a notebook. And it's not really as accessible for our community. And I think the analogy they used in the training was, how do we explain it to your mother over the kitchen table so it's not so complicated and loaded with jargon and acronyms? So we'll see. I know that they're willing to continue supporting us. And actually, in the fall, they might be willing to come and do I've asked them to come out in the fall and maybe do a deeper study session with the board to understand the key elements of continuous improvement. And I think part of one of the, the reason that's so important is the stability and leadership is one of the key factors for a district to be able to be successful. So the more stable that the board and the leadership can remain and stay on course and really monitor their goals, the more successful they're going to be. A similar conversation about the Lighthouse in a CSBA training that member Thomas and member Crocker and I attended. And this idea of are we spending 60% of our time monitoring academic performance? So we're going to have another summit for two days. And now that I'm starting to get closer to what they're going to provide, I've asked Assistant Superintendent Salinas to begin joining the conversation and looking at it from the lens of Ed Services. Would you add anything to that, Liddy?

[872] SPEAKER_14: I think what was the most exciting was to have as a pilot district, if you remember, Carl Cohn and his team came forward to ask for the MOU, and I think part of the work was connecting with other districts, but it's also because it's so deeply tied with the California Department of Education, you see the parallel of both. Today they had a board member, Tim Sobrante, who actually was there to really hear from the stakeholders there at the table, so it was a pretty rich discussion, and I look forward to building on that work with them.

[906] SPEAKER_27: And I think the last thing I would add is that because of our partnership with the pilot through CCEE, we're being asked to host a two to three day visit by one of the committees from the legislature. I believe it's the education committee that helps make recommendations for legislation and education. And they're going to spend two to three days with us. They'll be interviewing not just board members, but teachers, community members. And kind of what they're after is, Is the LCAP meaningful, is it useful, and is it helpful? And what would we recommend to them? So having that opportunity to speak directly to legislatures is valuable. And I think that's going to be helpful for our district. That's really my update on CCEE for now. I don't know, is there any questions about CCEE? The California Collaborative for Educational Excellence. Not to be throwing out acronyms, but I want to clarify that for the audience. Any other questions about that? OK. And then we do have good news. And I know we're not there yet, but we are excited to announce the launch of our new website. It has a wealth of information and new resources for you and your families. And I'd like to invite everyone to take a look at it and help us make it better. I like that it's just a new look, more pictures of kids. It looks a little less like a government-informed And I think it's great to be able to showcase what's going right in Newark. And I know a lot of people out there have had some real positive comments and our team has really worked hard on it. I really would like to recognize Patty Sandoval for her work and just, oh, I thought we fixed that and problem solving and working with Larry Simon, who I'd also like to recognize. And there's a committee that's been working on it. A number of our staff have really been involved many of the assistance from every division. And as I said, we're not there yet, but I think that just being able to strengthen and put a fresh new image out for the public and something that's user-friendly is exciting. And if you haven't looked at it, I encourage you to look at it. And there is an option where you can give us feedback and we can use that for lots of purposes, not only just running the district, but how can we improve the user friendly nature of the website. Anything else that we should add, Patty, that you think is important for the website?

[1056] SPEAKER_19: No, I think you've covered all. We do welcome feedback, as Superintendent Sanchez says. The more feedback we received, I think, will make the improvements necessary to it. Awesome.

[1071] SPEAKER_36: And that's wonderful, because if you want to know when the school is doing something, it's on the front first page of the website. I have a quick question. Have we looked at the, and I forget the number of the legislation that was recently passed

[1108] Nancy Thomas: It's not for this fall, but I think it's from a year from this fall. There's certain things that need notices for meetings that need to be prominent on the front page. They can't be, for example, board meetings can't be under a tab for board. A board tab. And I hope we would look at that legislation and maybe try to, since we're developing the website now, maybe trying to get ahead of it a little bit. Sure. We can do that.

[1143] SPEAKER_27: Um, I think the last piece I would add is, uh, I just got to receive the executive summary of the survey. And I know a lot of employees have asked what happened with the survey results. When are we going to hear back about that? I just got the first draft. I'll be polishing that and sending it to the board this Friday. to finalize and I hope to have that executive summary ready very soon on the website. Um, and certainly I want to have a final, I'd like to have a final copy by our next board meeting to be able to disseminate, disseminate, uh, widely. Um, but I just had the first draft completed by our, uh, communications partner. Um, so you'll be seeing that soon. Um, I just wanted to put that out there that I want to post that publicly once it's complete. Um, I hoped to have them both come out at the same time. It just didn't work out that way.

[1195] Ray Rodriguez: I had a question on what do you need from the schools in order to put things that are going on at the school? Because to parents, if they look at it and they don't see their school there, they're going to think that they're not being represented correctly. To my understanding, it's based on what they send you. Or do you look at their newsletter and then you put something in there?

[1226] SPEAKER_27: How do we put what's happening tomorrow? And Larry's here if I need him to help clarify. If I say it wrong, correct me, Larry. My understanding is whatever the schools are posting on their website automatically boils into this front page that shows all the activities. So all the schools have to do is maintain their own site, and it all gets forwarded into the master, is that correct, Larry?

[1247] SPEAKER_14: That's right, it pulls from their calendars.

[1249] SPEAKER_27: Got it. So we are pulling it directly from theirs and part of that was we wanted to make sure, I mean, the school sites look much better than ours. I just thought ours looked pretty boring. But I think the other piece is we have to be a little more vigilant as well as do we have media releases? Now we're putting a picture up that has media releases and making sure that, you know, we're not posting images of kids that parents may not want that up. That takes a little more time, but I think over time we'll have a really good library of great pictures of our kids, and I think that really says what we value, so. Anything else? Oops, sorry. And the last one is, I want to read this, but I'll share this with the board, and I have an invitation from Principal Huerta, and that we're invited to Newark Memorial High School's graduation ceremony. Saturday, June 17th, begins at 9 a.m. Please plan to arrive no later than 8.30 a.m. in the old gym. We anticipate over 2,000 guests. Please be prepared to wear your graduation regalia, and I would also recommend bringing some sunscreen or sunglasses. We're hoping for a hot day. But you have an invitation that Principal Wuerth has shared with you, and we'll share that with the public as well. But it's that time. I can't believe we're already coming to the end of a year here. Sierra, any comments from you about graduation? How are the seniors doing? Have they had senioritis?

[1351] SPEAKER_21: I've caught senioritis. I still have two more years. Good, we want you for two more years. I mean, everyone's just trying to get through these last few weeks with finals, AP testing, completely drained the whole campus. Everyone's kind of just trying to get through it.

[1371] SPEAKER_27: That's exciting.

[1372] SPEAKER_21: Yeah.

[1373] SPEAKER_27: But the seniors are, how are the seniors doing?

[1375] SPEAKER_21: Yeah, the seniors are, they're really excited. They're really excited. A lot of them have already finished all of their finals for their classes, so they're kind of just They're just like watching Netflix on their computers and stuff.

[1387] SPEAKER_27: Well, it's very exciting. And I know it's certainly the highlight of my job is being able to attend a graduation. I know the board really enjoys that. But that's really the last item I had on my update for the board.

[1399] SPEAKER_30: Great. Thank you. Adam, there's nothing for item 7.1. So we move on to 8.1, which is public comment on an agenda item. We have two guest speakers. The first one is Miss Debbie Sexton.

[1432] SPEAKER_05: Well, as you said, Tom, my name is Debbie Sexton. I started teaching here at Newark Memorial in the year 2000. And two years ago, I was transferred to Crossroads Independent Study High School as their science specialist. I really did not know anything about Crossroads at the time. I thought it was a continuation high school like Bridgepoint. And I had a lot of misconceptions about Crossroads and Bridgepoint, but I was pleasantly surprised and wanted to share with you my experience at Crossroads and Bridgepoint. I've taught a number of classes at, a number of subjects at Newark Memorial, CP Biology, CP Chemistry, Green Biology, which is a UCG level science course that I wrote, Earth Science, General Biology, Chem Comm, and the Sheltered Earth Science and Sheltered Biology courses. In the lower level courses, there were usually a greater percentage of students who would be having problems, which made it difficult to teach all the students in the class. I had gone to my department chair asking if some of these students who were failing and causing problems could be transferred to Bridgepoint. And he was told that they had to be 16 to go to Bridgepoint. And I didn't know about Crossroads, which is available for any grade level. But when I arrived at Crossroads, I found many of the same students that had given me problems in my Kimcomb class. However, the students were different over there. They were polite. Many of them were blossoming where they weren't before. In the environment that they're in at the campus, the campus is clean. There's no graffiti. And the students are polite. I mean, even the students that really gave me a lot of problems, you know, opening doors, hello, Ms. Sexton, good morning. It's been a pleasure working there. But we have students who come to Crossroads for a variety of unique challenges and opportunities. Some students have health problems, or the caregivers of a family member that does. Some are pregnant, have anxiety disorders, learning problems, and some have to work to help support their families. We have some students who have opportunities to take advantage of career or educational opportunities. Since there are misconceptions about our school, we wanted to share some of what is going on here at Crossroads. We know that there are going to be some changes, even though we don't know yet what they will be, but we wanted to let you know that Crossroads and Bridgepoint can be a valuable asset to the district if you'll give us the opportunity. For example, if a student at the age of 16, under the age of 16, is failing two or more classes at the first quarter, you can give them the opportunity to come over to Crossroads, and we can help them get caught up on their credits. We can help figure out what the problem was, deal with particular learning problems, study skills, time management. And then we can have them prepared to transfer right back to Newark Memorial for their sophomore year. Now, if the students are 16 and they're failing two or more classes, because if you fail two classes, you can't, you know, you automatically don't have enough credits to graduate. So if they're failing two more classes, you could just send them to Bridgepoint with the opportunity to go to Crossroads if that is appropriate for them, depending on whatever their challenges were. By utilizing this fully, not only would it help Crossroads, but it would help, and Bridgepoint, it would help Newark Memorial as well. If you got the students that were really causing problems out of those classrooms, the teachers could be free to be able to teach the remaining students without having to deal with a lot of the behavior problems that we experienced over there. So I just want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to share, and I hope that sometime you'll come over and visit us over there.

[1660] SPEAKER_30: Thank you. Mr. Damien Silva.

[1672] SPEAKER_03: Good evening. I'm actually here to advocate for Crossroads as well. I'm a student there. I'm Damien, and I'm an 11th grader. I actually had a very hard time my junior year at the memorial, and I unfortunately had to transfer over to Bridgepoint first. I was 145 credits in, and I only need 180 to transfer back. And I found myself a bridge point not learning as well as I have at Crossroads. And most of the students there don't really participate in worksheets in class because you get points or you get credits for attendance over there. I have found that I get credits faster and more efficiently at Crossroads. I was the only student in math analysis honors. at Bridgepoint, and then when I transferred to Crossroads, I have Mr. Hacker as a math teacher over here, and we're actually starting calculus. And I'm getting a head start on calculus to transfer back to AP Calculus my senior year. And I would have to say that the environment on the campus is very clean and friendly. I actually know a lot of students who go there. I find that, although attendance isn't mandatory, that I've gone every day since transferring. And I can spend four hours in math one day or four hours in history the other day and get all the credits I need. And you can work at your own pace which is good. So for me I was working a lot faster than most of the students at Bridgepoint. And yeah I had to transfer over like immediately actually because I only have a month left to get all my credits. But I do find that it is not stressful at Crossroads and I'm actually very prepared to transfer back to the memorial. Thank you.

[1772] SPEAKER_30: Thank you. Next on to item 9.1, which is a solar proposal. Mr. President.

[1788] SPEAKER_29: So tonight we're going to have with us Brian Taylor from Forefront Power and Kevin Flanagan from SPUR, the School Project for Utility Rate Reduction. SPUR is a joint powers authority that the district is a member of. We currently acquire our natural gas through our spur contract, and they have come together to put forward a potential solar proposal. There's many different ways districts can do solar. I mean, in my last district, as many of you know, we actually threw a combination of clean renewable energy bonds, qualified zone bonds, and regular bonds Actually the district bought and put into place solar at all 51 of our campuses We don't have the amount of bonding capacity at this point right now and available funds to go out and buy all of our own systems At least not up front at least not at the moment It is one of the possibilities we could look at, but this is a different way that we could potentially look at bringing solar to bring some savings to some of our campuses. The proposal that they're going to talk about is a way that we could at about half of the campuses of the district. It doesn't work for all the campuses, but it is one of several ideas that we will be bringing forward over the course of the next couple months to talk about solar. This will just be the first of the presentations, and I will let them begin. I'm not sure who's going first, so.

[1866] SPEAKER_26: I'll go first. OK, thank you. Brian, thank you for the nice introduction. Um, good evening. Thank you for having me here tonight. Really appreciate it. Um, my name is Kevin Flanagan and I am with a spur and I'm here tonight to talk about our, uh, one of our programs, the renewable energy aggregated procurement program or reap program. So as Brian mentioned, we are a joint powers authority. Uh, we were formed in 1989 by California public school districts. We currently have over 250 public agency members. Um, Like a lot of other JPAs, we aggregate the buying power of our membership. Our motto is buying together, buying better. Unlike a lot of other JPAs, though, we don't focus on insurance. We focus on what we broadly define as utility costs. So we focus on natural gas, we focus on telecom, we focus on electricity, LED lighting, and of course we have a solar program, which is what I'm here to talk about tonight. We are governed by a board of public agency administrators, and there is no cost to join SPUR. All of our programs are self-funded, so participating in a program is fee-based, but to be in SPUR does not require cost. So what is the REAP program? It's an aggregated solar buying program that leverages our really large collective membership. And really, there are three goals for the program. We want to streamline the solar buying process for California public agencies. So we've developed our own process. We went through a statewide RFP. We selected a vendor. Brian is here tonight to represent the vendor, Forefront Power. And so this allows school districts across the state to piggyback off of our efforts, which saves you time. Also, by leveraging our buying power, we wanted to drive down solar project pricing. And so that really great pricing is available to the district. Brian will present on that after me. And then finally, we wanted to improve project terms. And I'll talk a little bit later about some of the terms and conditions that come along with these agreements. Not just the pricing, but other things that are more risk related. that we wanted to help out with and improve. So what we did is we issued a statewide competitive RFP. Through our program, we secured pre-negotiated piggybackable solar project pricing and terms for SPUR members like Newark USD and other eligible non-members. The REAP program has been wildly popular. As you guys know, a lot of school districts are looking at solar and doing solar. Our program has been used by public agencies across the state, cities, school districts, colleges, over 35 megawatts at over 100 sites across the state. So it's been pretty popular. So a little bit of background on our process. Like I said, we developed a comprehensive request for proposals. We issued it to the marketplace. We solicited pricing in terms of 28 different types of solar projects, so small projects, medium-sized projects, large projects, roof-mounted projects, ground-mounted projects, carport canopies, et cetera. And we had very specific project includes, excludes, and assumptions. We required the vendors to respond. with their company background and experience. We required them to submit system designs, component specifications, operations and maintenance packages. We reviewed their contract documents. And of course, we required them to submit firm pricing for both cash purchase scenarios and a power purchase agreement scenario, which is what the district is currently considering. So 440 Power is the selected vendor through our program. They have extremely attractive pricing and terms. Lots of public agency experience, personnel statewide. They have a very strong and stable parent company, Mitsui and Company. It's a Japanese conglomerate. The solar industry is pretty topsy-turvy, and so we're happy that our REAP vendor is a stable entity and is backed by a very large multinational corporation. And Brian will talk a little bit more about that as well. So the result of our process was that the pricing and terms and conditions that were submitted in response to the RFP are now memorialized in a master contract that we have with Forefront Power. And those terms, conditions, and pricing are available to public agencies like Newark USD. And so essentially what you'll be doing if you move forward with the project is piggybacking off of the efforts that we did and piggybacking off the master contract that we have in place with Forefront. So just a kind of a highly level overview of some of the things that are included in the master contract. The PPA pricing is very low. And not only is it low, but, and this was important to us as we developed the program, we wanted a pricing that did not escalate over time. So it's a flat price for the 20 year term of the agreement. The price you pay for the first kilowatt hour is the price you pay for the last kilowatt hour. We like this as a JPA because we believe it really reduces risk for the district because it provides you with cost certainty for the entire term of the agreement. The contract includes turnkey project development. All these costs and services are on the vendor forefront to provide. So the engineering, the design, the permitting materials, construction. We included liquidated damages in the contract. So if the project is delayed, forefront will be required to pay liquidated damages to the district for those delays. There's also an annual performance guarantee. So if these systems don't produce the amount of kilowatt hours that they're contractually required to produce, they will have to write a check to the district to make up the difference. And so they're going to be motivated to make sure these systems operate the way that they're supposed to. There's going to be online system monitoring. So you as the board and administrators and even students and staff in the district can see what the systems are doing and watch the performance of the systems as they as they move forward. In terms of equipment, a forefront's required per our contract to use only Tier 1 modules, which is important. You want to make sure that the equipment, even though they own the equipment and they're responsible for operating and maintaining it, you want to make sure that the equipment is good as you're entering into this agreement under the assumption that the systems will work and operate and produce kilowatt hours and thus produce savings for the district. The operations and maintenance and washing the systems is included in the contracts that's on the forefront to do that. Pricing includes prevailing wage. It includes our administrative fee. I mentioned earlier that all of our programs are self-funded. Renewable energy certificates, so every megawatt hour that gets produced by these systems, there's a renewable energy certificate that's associated with that. It's a virtual certificate. It's tradable in the marketplace. It doesn't have a lot of value right now, but we feel from a risk perspective, it makes a lot of sense for the district to retain those for the long term because you can't claim to be green unless you have these certificates. And so we feel like it's really important given that the state may potentially someday require school districts to be green, that you retain these certificates. So those accrue to the district under the agreement. And then finally, system removal. So at the end of the 20-year term, if the district wants to get rid of the canopies, forefront power is required to come in and remove them at their cost. And so there's no cost to the district. So with that, unless there's questions now, I can hand it over to Brian, or we can do questions later.

[2317] SPEAKER_30: I do have questions. I don't know if it's appropriate to go later. So just the, and I'll probably oversimplify, right? But from my understanding, we provide the real estate, ProFront installs the panels, and we pay ProFront for reduced power rate over 20 years. Yeah, exactly. Is that part of his, I'm sorry.

[2340] SPEAKER_26: Okay, Brian. Thank you. It's a good question.

[2344] Nicole Izant: Thank you. Thank you.

[2358] SPEAKER_24: Hey, good evening. So I'm Brian Taylor. I'm with Forefront Power. So the quick commercial about Forefront Power, we are, a leader in the California solar solution space. So our team has done over 800 megawatts, 1,000 projects. We finance over $3 billion worth of solar project financings across the nation. As Kevin mentioned, our parent company, Mitsui, is an A-rated, $29 billion market cap company, a very stable parent company. Our group is largely considered the leaders in financial innovation. So as you'll hear about later, what we're doing installing solar systems and then offering the power to you at a rate that's cheaper than what you're paying PG&E. And so in order to do that, we have to come in and finance these systems. So it's a way that when we're able to lower the cost of capital for these systems, we can pass that on to you in the form of a lower power purchase agreement rate or kilowatt hour rate. We're also the leaders in the California public sector, having done over 45 megawatts of California public schools. And as Kevin mentioned, we won the SPUR RFP to end all RFPs. So some customers you may know, we've worked with Newman Crows Landing Unified, Tracy Unified, every CSU in the state, we've done, we're working with State Center Community College District right now down in Fresno, all the community college campuses in Fresno, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, so if you think there's a more difficult solar project to build than within the walls of a state prison, I dare you to find one. It's SUI, our parent company, A-rated, $42 billion in revenue. They have over 41 gigawatts of energy assets operating around the globe. So a very stable balance sheet that we're really happy to have behind us. So this is kind of an example, like a cartoon Gantt chart, if you will, of the timing for these projects. So right now we're doing feasibility analysis. Say we were to execute a contract in June. Next thing that would happen is we would deploy site diligence doing geotech site survey. And we can do that in the summertime. And we begin design and engineering using our DSA pre-check designs that we can get in and out of the DSA in usually one day. It takes a month to get there, but we're in and out in one day usually. And then doing our PGE interconnection applications, begin procurement sometime in the winter, and then basically have steel and everything arrive day school gets out so we don't interfere with your school schedule. Test scores should not go down as a result of solar, and we firmly believe that. Keeping this to the summer would be in everyone's best interest. We can go earlier than that, but we assume that you would rather wait until the summer. So what is a power purchase agreement to answer the president's question? So in a power purchase agreement, Forefront Power will finance the systems. There's no capital outlay, no bonding on the part of the district. We finance the systems and you guys purchase the energy produced by the systems over the course of 20 years. So as of right now, you have an old PG&E bill After you go solar, you'd have a new PG&E bill, which is much reduced because you're not buying as much power from the utility. You have a PPA payment, which is for the solar energy. And together, those two bills are less than your previous bill. And importantly, the rate for the solar energy is flat for 20 years. So whereas your PG&E rates kind of creep up over time, your solar rate is flat. If we were in here talking a few years ago, we'd be talking about a PPA rate with an escalator. where you're hoping that PG&E rates go up at 4% annually, our rate's gonna go up at 1.5% annually, and hopefully that hedge stays in the money. But now we're talking about a flat escalator for 20 years. Make sense? Okay, so this is essentially a utility rate hedge. We're able to monetize the federal government's 30% investment tax credit, so that's how we're able to really offer a low cost of capital to the district. Because the district doesn't pay taxes as a public entity, you're not able to take advantage of those tax benefits. So we partner with tax equity investors and take advantage of that tax credit and pass it on to you in the form of a lower PPA rate. This is an aligned partnership. So the only way we make our money back after we've installed and build all these things is for the district to purchase the power produced by them. Therefore, we're aligned in our goals. We want this thing to produce as much power as possible so we make money back. You guys want this thing to produce clean, renewable energy at a rate that's cheaper than what you're paying PG&E. So to that end, we take care of all the operations and maintenance. If an inverter goes down, a panel breaks, we fix it because it's our asset and that's how we make our money back. And if that weren't enough, we offer a performance guarantee where if the system doesn't produce in any given year what we say it will, we make you hold for what you had to pay PG&E for that more expensive electricity.

[2658] SPEAKER_30: Ms. Crock, you had a question before I follow up. Let me go ahead and finish it. OK. Do you mind if I ask a question because it pertains to this slide? Yeah, go for it. Yeah. Is there a scenario within now, in the next 20 years, where our PPA and our new PG&E bill will exceed the old PG&E bill?

[2678] SPEAKER_24: Depends. If you think PG&E rates are going to go up over time or down. If you think PG&E rates are going to go down over time, that may be a risk. The other thing that's in flux right now, so with this, we're doing what's called net energy metering. You've seen houses. That's what residential systems do as well. So when these systems are producing power, say in the summertime, when school is out, you're not consuming a lot of power, but the system is producing a lot of power. That's all going back onto the grid, right? The grid is compensating you at the full retail rate for that electricity, right? Not in, in other areas of the country that doesn't happen, but in California it does. So you're able to maximize your arbitrage by selling peak summer power and then buying winter mid-peak or off-peak power back. And so that is really what makes the economics so lucrative here. Now, if PG&E were to change those time of use periods, which they're contemplating doing, then that might affect the rate, the compensation you'll get. But over time, your bill for PG&E is going to probably go up in one way or the other. Does that make sense? Okay, so that's net energy metering 101 and PPA 101 basically. So here, the strategy for Newark is essentially right now at these six sites, you're paying about $800,000 a year in electricity expenses. We believe that in year one, with no cost to the district, we can shave that by about 17% or $135,000. And as PG&E rates go up at a 3% utility rate escalator over time, you think that equates to about $5 million. So again, we're using DSA pre-check designs targeting, forget the fall 2017, but summer 2018 for construction and then a flat 20-year rate. So here are the layouts. I'm going to go through the six of them briefly. But basically we're talking about DSA pre-check designs with carports over your parking lot areas in most cases. We're targeting about an 80 percent offset for your electricity consumed on site. The junior high school is just a great parking lot for this. I mean nothing's happening. There's no trees there. It's a it's a fairly open flat space. Birch Grove another excellent project. You know the distance between the parking lot and the meter here is very low. That's good. In our business, that's what we like to minimize, right? We want to make sure that home run is small because that's copper cabling, that's expensive. Shilling, more of the same. Gram, one shade structure on the blacktop and then some parking canopies over the parking lot. And the adult school, a very simple, nice structure there. Now, importantly, what we're doing at a lot of these sites Energy meter aggregation. So Brian tell me if I need to hurry up or if I'm going to in the weeds. Okay, but You have multiple meters on this site at Newark don't and so what we're able to do is connect to one of those meters and offset multiple meters on that property So we're offsetting the adjacent school. Is it what Whitford Whiteford?

[2881] SPEAKER_29: It'd be Whiteford and McGregor which is bridge point and crossroads and adult ed they're all and They're all connected, as you all know, on one property, but we actually have three meters that are on that property.

[2894] SPEAKER_24: So we're basically grouping them all together and getting more bang for your buck through that solution. So here is the basic pricing and savings. See that we're talking about a weighted average rate of 13.7 per kilowatt hour produced for a portfolio system size of about 1.6 megawatts. Then offset roughly 75% of your energy production. And year one, $135,000 in savings. Over 20 years, you can see as PG&E rates go up over time, year rates would stay flat, roughly $5 million. SPUR, as Kevin mentioned, their motto is buying together, buying better. They did an RFP statewide. We were selected. And as a result, over 10 districts and municipalities throughout the state have capitalized on their RFP to save time. energy and money in procuring solar. It gives you standardized pricing, standardized contracts, and standardized terms. And they get to be the consultant providing oversight throughout the process. Schools Power curriculum. So this is a drag and drop curriculum set that we are the exclusive partner with Schools Power. So this is a great, really awesome curriculum component that incorporates the solar into the classroom. Students can look outside, see the solar, and then look at their lesson plan, look on their laptop or their smartphone and see what the system is producing in real time. And this curriculum incorporates next generation science standards, common core curriculum components, and it doesn't require a lot of training on the part of your teachers. It's really just drag and drop curriculum sets. EV charging stations, this is kind of just a bell and whistle. If you'd like, we can incorporate EV charging stations. into the system at no cost. Again, we can bundle this in with the cost of our installation. We can take tax credits on these and you have the option if you'd like to charge people to use them. Revenue collection is kind of switch that you can flip on and off as you'd like. These are what the carports look like up close. So it's not watertight underneath them, but it's more water protection than you have right now. And a lot of people don't even realize till these things are installed, they do provide a good amount of shade, or a good amount of LED lighting and security, actually tamps down the light pollution quite a bit. So in conclusion, $135,000 in year one for this portfolio, about four, about $5 million over the course of 20 years of flat rates, and then you have the piggybackable RFP with SPUR. So I'll pause there. Answer questions.

[3056] SPEAKER_36: I have a number of questions. First of all, is SPUR a non-profit?

[3062] SPEAKER_26: Yeah, SPUR is a public agency non-profit.

[3065] SPEAKER_36: Thank you. Secondly, I'm delighted with the fact that we're talking about solar because I think this is what we all have to do. But I'm looking at the Junior High site. There's a whole huge parking lot there that could be solar. Why could the whole parking lot not be covered?

[3084] SPEAKER_24: In our business, you're either load-constrained or space-constrained. So a couple of your sites, you didn't have enough space to put all the solar on them that we would have liked to have done. Here, for instance, there's not a lot of space to put on solar. But at the high school, we were able to offset the consumption there. So you didn't need to go bigger because you're not consuming more power there. We hit an 80% offset, which is the optimal area where we can reduce your savings.

[3110] SPEAKER_36: So the power is only going to the building within the range of that. But you're selling the power back to PG&E, is that correct?

[3118] SPEAKER_24: You are selling the power back to PG&E.

[3120] SPEAKER_36: We are. So if we were to increase the size so that the whole district's PG&E bill would be impacted rather than just the PG&E bill of the particular site that it's on.

[3134] SPEAKER_24: So after you get to 100% of your consumption, and then you were to sell another kilowatt hour, PG&E doesn't compensate you at the full retail rate for that next kilowatt hour.

[3145] SPEAKER_36: So it doesn't work as a district? It does not take care of, say, we as an entity?

[3152] SPEAKER_24: Yes, yes. Each site is its kind of own animal.

[3155] SPEAKER_36: If we were to build a solar farm someplace, they would not pay us back?

[3161] SPEAKER_30: That would be a dip. Go ahead. I think it's just highly inefficient.

[3165] SPEAKER_26: Yeah. So there are programs that allow a public agency to build a solar farm offsite and sell that electricity. Um, most public agencies don't have the amount of land that's available that would be needed for something like that. The other real kind of problem with, with that, uh, uh, setup is that the utility doesn't compensate you anywhere near the value that you would get under that Brian's presenting tonight. They compensate you at a really low rate, so.

[3194] SPEAKER_36: So through this program, you can't get into that where you are. I mean, it seems, I know that there's something like six sites or five sites that did not have enough space, is that correct, to do it, or did not have enough use of PG&E?

[3208] SPEAKER_24: A couple didn't have enough, one didn't have enough space, this site, and then the other ones didn't have enough use to where we could get the system to about 100 kilowatts, where it starts to make sense. Because we're trying to beat your utility rate, right? We're trying to, and if the build cost of those sites is so much, then PPA rate would be higher and you wouldn't be in the money.

[3230] SPEAKER_36: Thank you.

[3231] SPEAKER_30: I think I've got my Rodriguez.

[3236] Ray Rodriguez: Thank you for your presentation. Um, I, um, I also was wondering why not do all the sites and um, So you're saying that each site is basically their own entity? Okay. So then we would be on a tier system then with PG&E because we have the sites that are, have solar. So are those six sites, is it six that are going to have solar? Yes. Are they all going to be one or are they, you know, they're all going to be one to solar and then we have the rest of the district? How's that going to work out?

[3278] SPEAKER_24: You have meters at those six sites, and those sites would be entering into a net energy metering agreement with PG&E, each individual. So six different interconnection applications are submitted to PG&E sites. The other five are business as usual.

[3297] Ray Rodriguez: OK. So there's no way to, for instance, to credit the whole district building. Don't have solar if you have overage. on the ones that do have solar to where you can't do that. It's all separate.

[3311] SPEAKER_24: Not cost effectively.

[3312] Ray Rodriguez: Right. And then a lot of our parents are, you know, fencing is very, very important to a lot of school districts because of the, you know, safety issue and especially with all the stuff happening in the world we live in. So a lot of the parents are looking at fences and some of them are complaining that the fences that we have are kind of ugly. And it's too bad that you guys can't design a fence that's solar, right? So that it looks nice and it produces solar.

[3346] SPEAKER_24: I'm working on it.

[3348] Ray Rodriguez: Okay, good. And your proposal Naturally, the first thing we're going to ask is, you know, what's it going to cost us, you know, to get everything rolling. So.

[3360] SPEAKER_30: It should be zero, right?

[3363] SPEAKER_24: Yeah, I've excluded. Is it zero? I've excluded inspector of record fees.

[3367] Ray Rodriguez: Right. So there's no initial. I just want to make sure there's no initial cost. It's all wrapped into the contract and the fact that you're doing it and we're saving money on electricity. So there's no initial cost. I want to make sure. Thank you.

[3384] SPEAKER_30: How much is that inspector fee?

[3386] SPEAKER_24: The inspector fee is maybe about $15,000 a site. Inspector and special testing fees.

[3392] Ray Rodriguez: You're waiving that.

[3394] SPEAKER_24: What's that?

[3394] Ray Rodriguez: You're waiving those.

[3395] SPEAKER_24: I didn't include that in my pricing because the district is paying for the inspector themselves. So if you'd like, I can include it in our PPA rate and we can reimburse the district for that payment.

[3406] Ray Rodriguez: We don't really want to pay anything.

[3410] SPEAKER_24: Sure, it would marginally.

[3411] SPEAKER_30: I think it would reflect the 135 savings over time, right, just sort of.

[3414] SPEAKER_24: Marginally increase your PPA rates, which would marginally decrease your PPA rates, but I can do that, absolutely.

[3419] SPEAKER_30: Just financing that portion, basically.

[3422] Nancy Thomas: Member Thomas. Yeah, thank you very much. The question I have is about the comment you made about an average 3% increase per year in PG&E rates. And Mr. Richards has estimated that over the next two years, Our utility costs are projected to increase by 0.5%. So that's a big difference. Mr. Richards, why such a small or why such a large? What's the discrepancy there?

[3462] SPEAKER_29: As with anything else with PG&E, we're projecting forward. We're projecting based on how things have been going. Our rates, we have not had significant spikes in our rates. Either that or we've been offsetting it enough with our energy management within the district to offset. We're looking at total dollars cost across the district, not necessarily rates as far as projected change in the expenditure from year over year. We have been implementing throughout the district various types of savings. That have been helping us with that as far as what the actual rates are. I have not seen yet I do understand that PG&E currently has an application before the puck for a rate increase It hasn't been approved by the PUC yet And if it does come through we may have to relook at the budget But we're all waiting to hear what the PUC is going to do on that I think it would be very helpful for the board in general to to see the return on the investment that we've made with the bond with our

[3518] Nancy Thomas: our energy efficient HVAC units with our energy efficient lighting and so forth. So to get a history of our utility, savings would be good. And I know the superintendent had talked about bringing one of these consultants in. And just even in your office, there's a microwave and there's sinks. There's those kind of things all over the district where we also can affect savings. So on top of any savings we get from a program like this, I think there's a lot that we've already done and can continue to do to save money ongoing in our utilities.

[3561] SPEAKER_29: We actually do have Puck and Yvonne from Beacon Consulting that will be coming at the end of the fiscal year. I believe we're scheduling them for June. I can't remember off the top of my head if it's the 6th or the 27th, but they're coming to one of our two June board meetings with information with regard to all the Prop 39 projects and an update on what our energy usage has looked like over the various things that we've done. We actually have it scheduled to come forward in June.

[3583] Nancy Thomas: Fantastic, thank you.

[3585] SPEAKER_29: Member Rodriguez?

[3587] Ray Rodriguez: I'll... what do you call it? Defer to President Obama first?

[3591] SPEAKER_28: To Mr. President, I haven't talked yet. Go ahead. Thank you. So my question is in terms of, uh, the mobility of this. And I only ask that because as we are internally discussing, um, our facilities, uh, master plan, um, some of the sites may or may not look different. Um, so are these mobile at all or are they, once you're there, they're stuck for 20 years, right?

[3618] SPEAKER_24: I would, I would think about them as being stuck for 20 years. Um, you have the option to move them. but you would have to pay for the and the lost energy while they're being okay.

[3633] SPEAKER_28: No, that's good. And that's just for us to think about in terms of if we're going to be a longterm position for that, about doing a certain sites or thinking about like, I know we had been talking about, um, is it the MLT facility, like a MacGregor, like different options. And if this solar, these panels are there, then we will not be able to, But that's my only thought. The other thing is you mentioned with the charging stations, that would be at every site or it would just be like a few sites? You tell me. Okay.

[3669] SPEAKER_24: Cool. Thank you.

[3669] SPEAKER_36: So there's no cost for the charging stations?

[3672] SPEAKER_24: There's no upfront cost, but naturally... It's part of the PPA. PPA. We would finance it in the same way. We would pay for it and then incorporate that into the

[3684] SPEAKER_36: What does it cost for a charging station?

[3688] SPEAKER_30: I think that's way into the weeds. Member Rodriguez. About $100,000.

[3697] SPEAKER_24: Somewhere between $5,000 and $10,000.

[3699] Ray Rodriguez: Oh, that's not bad.

[3701] SPEAKER_36: So that's the fast one. That's the medium one. Medium one. It's not the real fast, fast. OK.

[3707] Ray Rodriguez: Do you have a question? Yeah, I do. We had a board member that retired, Janet Schaefer, that for years she preached to us about doing solar. And so hopefully she's watching. But I looked at the picture and it showed the, you know, parking, you know, cover. Is that the only one you have? Is that basically what you're proposing, that they all be like that, set up in parking areas?

[3740] SPEAKER_24: Why not ground mount? Why not roof mount?

[3742] Ray Rodriguez: Exactly.

[3743] SPEAKER_24: Right, so with ground mounts, we can do them. You would fence them in. They would be DSA exempt. Problem is you don't have ground, right? You don't have a lot of land to use. With roof mounts, it's the DSA. DSA is usually the issue there. It takes a very long time to get those things permitted, as opposed to these, which are DSA pre-check. And the roofs don't have the same utility as a shaded structure might. But then you also have to take into account the age of your roofs and if they're going to be needed to be re-roofed in the next 20 years. And so it can be a little bit of a thread the needle on a couple of factors.

[3782] Ray Rodriguez: So what I was thinking about is, you know, we're very fortunate, um, because each one of our sites are elementary size or eight to 10 acres as opposed to, you know, Fremont where there might be just four acres. So there's plenty of acres there. Um, and I was wondering why, couldn't come up with an innovative way to put solar maybe over some of that open area that we have. I know it's easier to do the carport thing, and I understand all that. It just feels that we have other schools that have all these other acres that we could find a way to maybe utilize something there. When I was looking at your picture, you didn't show any local school districts because I was at a softball game the other day and there were some people from San Lorenzo and they were excited about solar because they had the overhead for the parking and how much money it saved the district. But I didn't see any local districts here. I saw some outlying districts. Are you working with local districts besides us? For instance, Alameda County?

[3860] SPEAKER_24: Tracy Unified in Alameda County. We won the Bay Area Renewable Energy RFP in 2014 or 2015. So we have built sites with the city of Fremont, built sites with San Mateo. We recently won an RFP. I can't publicly announce it yet. Santa Rosa we've done sites with. Dixon Unified out of the 80.

[3885] Ray Rodriguez: No, that's fine. You've answered my question. Okay. Thank you.

[3888] SPEAKER_30: So, I do have a question and a comment. So, if you can give us some more information, not right now, but as far as your projection model where, you know, if you're projecting us for $135,000 and if you've been doing this in other districts for, you know, a number of years now, how accurate has those models been, right, or has that model been as far as your projection versus the actual outcome of that model? And if you just give that information to Superintendent Sanchez, we can just look at the track history, you know, of when that came in. And then the comment is, you know, our district, not our district, but my day job district, we have solar through a different process, not through SPUR. But I think the other tangible benefit that you mentioned, other than the savings, is the shaded parking and the light during the evening time, where that normally doesn't exist. We've had it there for you know nine years now and Initially there was a what is this giant everything in the parking lot? But over time and the staff has come to endear and because it's shaded you know covered parking essentially And so there is that that other aspect of benefit to to the school and the staff as well Thank you Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. We have a public comment Angela my point one. Oh

[3974] SPEAKER_18: Good evening. I mostly have questions. So I direct them to you and then you.

[3981] SPEAKER_30: It's, so it's public comment and then if it's appropriate, we can ask them to respond. Okay, sure.

[3988] SPEAKER_18: Yeah, go for it. So when I think of JPAs, I think of, well, I heard two terms, customers and members. When I think of JPAs, I think of voting rights. Would the districts have any voting rights? And what would be the cost to drop out of an agreement? And what if the feds the tax advantages disappear? There's a grid tax if PG&E increases that grid tax. That's what I call it. It's, it's the infrastructure tax to put back to the grid. Are these costs absorbed by the customers or is it just a sunk cost to And who covers vandalism? And if we sell the property, then what?

[4043] SPEAKER_30: Those are all great, valid questions. Can you respond to that now or later, perhaps?

[4047] SPEAKER_26: I think we can probably try to address them now. The first one, I think, is for me mostly about SPUR and voting rights. We're governed by a board of K-12, K-14, actually, administrators. So our board is made up of MOT directors, CBOs from across the state. And I can get you that list if you like. And they're really the one that governs our agency and makes decisions about our agency. Vandalism, I'm kind of jumping around. Vandalism is covered by Forefront. And so if somebody vandalized the system and damages the system, then they're required to fix that. I think they would expect you guys to report that to them, but it would be their responsibility to fix it. I think there was a question about the grid tax. That may have been a question about net metering and the credits that you receive for the energy that you send back to the grid. Those rules are in place now that you receive almost full retail value for those kilowatt hours that you send back to the grid. So the utility PG&E will actually give you a bill credit for that. That bill credit goes to offset other costs that you incur from the utility. That could always change. I think one of you asked about risks over 20 years. I mean, the utility is always doing new things. And so, you know, that could potentially change over 20 years. There's no way to predict that. Other questions? Cost of dropout. Dropout. So you do want to make sure that you want to do this for 20 years. And I think it would be good to maybe review the agreement. If you have an attorney, I'm not sure who your attorney is, but if your attorney could start to review the agreement, there are provisions in there. Termination clause. So if you close a school, let's say, and you no longer want to obligate yourself to purchase that power, you can terminate the agreement. And there's a whole termination clause in there. And yes, there's a termination fee. Remember, the way that they make money is you buying the power from them for 20 years. And so they're expecting to have that return on investment. If you can't buy that power for the entire term of the agreement, you can terminate the agreement and sever ties. You can also buy the system. So every year throughout the contract term, you'll have the option to buy the system at fair market value. you know, money falling from the sky and you wanted to own the solar system, you could enter into negotiations with them, hire an appraiser, the system gets appraised at fair market value and you can buy the system and own it. And then, of course, you'd be responsible for operations and maintenance, but you would receive all the value of the solar and wouldn't be paying for it anymore.

[4209] SPEAKER_29: Other questions? I think that was pretty good.

[4212] SPEAKER_36: In terms of selling the, we do sell, Overages that we do not need at this point. That is our money not yours.

[4223] SPEAKER_26: Yeah, exactly So the only money that flows from you to them is you buying the power that that their systems generate Those systems will generate a kilowatt hour you will either use that kilowatt hour on site because you're running lights or air conditioning if you are Using less electricity than what you're producing, you'll send kilowatt hours back to the grid. That bill credit will accrue to you on your PG&E bill, the school district.

[4248] SPEAKER_36: So that could take care of other sites?

[4251] SPEAKER_26: Well, it depends on how you look at your budgeting. I mean, if your electricity bill is just one big bucket, you can look at that as a savings. But the savings accrue to each meter, not to.

[4261] SPEAKER_36: So if we get over 100%, that's just free for PG&E, or does that Do they give you credit?

[4269] SPEAKER_26: They'll give you a very, very tiny credit. It's very important to size these systems just to offset your load at that site. If you size it much greater than that, that's one of the biggest risks. If you size a system that's too large, you're gonna be buying power from them and receiving a value for that power that's less than what you're paying them for it. So you want to make sure that you're not overproducing power.

[4290] SPEAKER_36: Will we have a total amount that the systems cost? So, so for example, if we did come into a pot of money, that we would know. Do you have sort of an estimate right now what the total system would cost?

[4306] SPEAKER_26: It's essentially a fair market value assessment, so a third party appraiser is brought in at that time.

[4313] SPEAKER_36: So at the beginning, I assume that there's a certain amount.

[4318] SPEAKER_26: I think there is a schedule provided in the agreement. Again, if you want to look at the agreement, it might be a good idea to get into the details, but there's a schedule provided in the agreement.

[4328] SPEAKER_24: you'll see two columns. One is if you want to buy it and have us remove it. And that's different than if you want to just buy it and own it. If you want to buy it and own it, which you can do starting in year six, because that's after we extract all the tax credits out of it. Okay. You can buy it in year six and it's typically about two bucks a watt, which would work out to be about $3 million a year. Um, and the system itself, I would imagine you're going to be, these systems in particular is probably about a $9 million upfront.

[4364] SPEAKER_30: Great. Thank you very much. Okay. Onto 9.2. Is there a move for approval? I'll move approval by member Thomas. Is there a second?

[4380] SPEAKER_36: I'll second.

[4381] SPEAKER_30: Second by member Crocker. Please vote.

[4386] Nancy Thomas: Can we get the lights on, please?

[4390] SPEAKER_21: OK.

[4391] SPEAKER_30: Five ayes. Thank you. 9.3, audit committee charter. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Moved by member Crocker. Is there a second? Second by Rodriguez. Please vote. Five ayes. Thank you. 9.4, school facilities fees. We do have a guest speaker, Angela. Yeah. 9.4.

[4430] Nancy Thomas: Not a guest speaker.

[4433] SPEAKER_30: Or public speaker for 9.4. Maybe did you put in, yeah. This is the school facilities fee. Yeah, usually we hear public comment first, yeah.

[4465] Ray Rodriguez: We value your input, that's why you were first.

[4473] SPEAKER_18: I briefly read over the report. I noticed that the study is using local factor. I don't mean to come across as a gold digger, but the study is using a local factor. And I was wondering why School Works did not use the state factor, which is higher. And there's, so that's just one question, and if you're able to answer it, cool. If not, no big deal. Maybe it's more of the lower of the two. One thing I want, I read over Fremont's study, which they did in April 8th of 2016. The title of the report was School Facilities Needs Analysis. That was done by a company called Dolinka. Anyway, there was something in their report that I wanted to just read to you, and it's on page two. It says in determining the amount of any proposed alternative fees the school district must project in accordance with section 6595.6 the total number of students to be generated by future units projected student enrollment. This projection is performed by applying the student generation rates for residential development over the previous five years of a type similar to that of a that of the future units either in the school district or in the city or in the county in which the school district is located. And this next sentence is what I'm trying to zoom in on and it says, the projection may be modified by relevant planning agency information. And it's that last sentence that I'm interested in because to me planning agency information might be the city of Newark's planning information that is permits approved or permits polled or agreements signed, housing agreements. And in this report, the number used for residential housing is 1,000. We know that it's going to be more than 1,000 because there's one housing development in a loan that's 1,200. So I was just wondering if that's a loophole and if you could use it. Thank you.

[4631] SPEAKER_30: Mr. Richards, do you have a response to that? I do. Thank you.

[4634] SPEAKER_29: With regard to actually each of your questions, While yes, potentially, they could change the overall amounts that would calculate for the district, we are actually at the cap on level one developer fees for this district. There is no higher rate than we could go than the rate that came as a result of this report. And we do not qualify yet as a district for level two or level three developer fees. Fremont, on the other hand, actually qualifies for what are called level three developer fees. So they are able to assess a rate that is much higher than the statewide rate. There are several conditions that we have to meet to be able to qualify for level three rates. As you probably know, because I know you've been at prior board meetings, we've been declining in enrollment rather than growing over the past many years. We're hoping that's going to turn around with all the development that we're projected to now have. We are coming off of a prior history of several years in a row of decline, which means we have available classroom space. We don't trigger eligibility until we are far more impacted with regard to number of classrooms than we currently are. Additionally, to qualify for level two or level three developer fees, you have to have had an election for a bond. that received at least 50% of the vote. It doesn't have to have passed, but it has to be greater than 50 within the past five years. It's actually been six years now since Measure G was passed. So we're outside of that window, and we didn't have enough growth or development while we were within the five-year window to qualify to trigger level two fees or level three fees. unless and until we go back out for another bond and we have the combination of that plus some actual years of year-over-year growth. We're not at a point yet as a district where we qualify for level 2 or level 3, but we do qualify for the maximum of level 1. And changing any of those underlying variables to a number that's higher would just further qualify us for level 1, but we're already at the maximum level under level 1, so it doesn't change the resulting rate that we can actually assess in this district at this time. And then the rates change again in 2018. We'll be going back out and doing another study. The state adjusts them in even-numbered years. And so we are a bit behind in catching up to the 2016 rate. Now that we have our study, we can move forward. But we'll be doing it again in about a year's time for the 2018 rate when it comes out from the state.

[4784] SPEAKER_30: OK. Thank you. Is there a motion to approve? by Member Rodriguez. Is there a second? I'll second. Second by Member Crocker. Please vote. Five ayes. Thank you. 9.5, a change to order revision number one. Is there a move to approve? I'll move to approve. By Member Thomas. Is there a second?

[4818] SPEAKER_28: I'll second.

[4818] SPEAKER_30: Second by Member Preciado. Please vote. Five ayes, thank you. 9.6, district-wide exterior painting contract award. We do have a guest speaker, Mr. Ron Pidgeon.

[4841] SPEAKER_25: Hello, I'm Beth, Ron. Own all professional painting together and felt that it would be better if I spoke, a bit nervous. So I just wanted to, in response to, in here it says all professionals obtaining bid was deemed unresponsive and non-responsible because of failure to submit required documentation with their bid and had an unsuccessful reference check. As far as the documentation, I did submit the qualifications and experience, I just didn't submit it with the two pages of section H. which I have brought with me tonight along with the qualifications and experience. I would like for our business to be reconsidered for this bid project as we are Newark residents, we are Newark business owners, we were the preferred painting contractor for the city of Newark for all the schools from 1998 to 2007. When Friday morning we got an email that said that they completed the review of our documents, corresponding reference checks, and determined our bid to be unresponsive. The attachment H questionnaire was a required bid form and was not included with the bid. Additionally, the reference list that was provided included only small contracts less than $100,000 on airport projects or out of date references from 2008. There was no nothing in the bid information that was requiring us to do anything over or under a $100,000 project. So I'm not sure where that falls into considering us for this project. And as far as the out-of-date references, the out-of-date references that I gave were all the Newark schools that we had painted, which is a total of 10, eight schools, two of them twice. That's a total of 10 schools that we had done. And then it also said, On the listed references was Music Elementary at Newark Unified School District. The paint at that campus has been experiencing defects, including delamination at metal canopies. The last time that school was painted was 17 years ago. Had the painting been maintained, there would be no defects. So by that even being mentioned in this email as them disregarding us as being a responsible or responsive bidder, I'm not sure where that came from. So I'm asking for you guys to revisit our bid as we were the lower bidder. We also visited all six sites that were painted last year with the eyes of a painter. They did terrible work. Peeling paint everywhere. Teachers. staff members, janitors, everyone at every school site is disgusted with the paint jobs that were done last year. And I see that what they're recommending is both contractors that painted the schools last year are the recommended contractors for this year's painting. We are proud to be part of the Newark community. Our daughters went to school here all throughout.

[5042] Sean Abruzzi: And we would like reconsideration for all professional painting to be awarded this bid.

[5054] SPEAKER_25: Yeah, and so as far as being unsuccessful, unsuccessful reference check, I have no idea what they're referring to. They never gave us an opportunity to even respond to that or even to tell us what it was that they did not get a response on. So again, I've included the two pages for section H. And the reason I did not include it in the bid was there's nothing on there to mark yes or no or answer. I did it in my own format and did submit that with the bid. So that's our case. Leave the paper?

[5099] SPEAKER_27: Yeah. Thank you. I'll leave it with Patty.

[5110] SPEAKER_30: Member Preciado.

[5111] SPEAKER_28: I was just going to say, I'm not sure how the process works. So I don't know if I'd defer to Mr. Richards in terms of figuring out what the process is.

[5130] SPEAKER_29: The public contract code, when we go out for these types of bids, require that we establish what all of the required submissions will be as part of the bid documents. That's all part of the project from the very beginning. Non-responsive and non-responsible are two different things. Non-responsible requires a hearing which is why we opened up the possibility for people to come tonight and put it that way and agendized it that way because in this particular instance and in one other instance with regard to this particular bid set, we had responses that were both. Their bid was actually lacking some required documentation. They submitted it a second time with the form actually blank. The first time the form was completely missing from the package. As you're going through with the bid opening, when you go through the bid opening, you actually have to tick off all the required elements and whether or not they are present or not, and then read off the price. And then you go back through and cross-review to make sure nothing was missed along the way. There was missing it from the very beginning. They did later submit one, but it was blank. So it couldn't be accepted in the form that it was. I understand now they've just submitted another one. We have not seen it and certainly didn't have it prior to bringing the agenda forward to the board. with regard to the Information in the reference checks. I'll have to gather some additional data together. However, we do have Some experiences within the district with some issues with regard to painting at various sites as the board is aware I Will it's the will of the board with regard to awarding contracts you have the ability to override the recommendation however That would not be our recommendation at this point. Because we, the code is what the code is with regard to the rules have to be followed by all the bidders. We could potentially have a protest from the other firm, but it's really up to the board which way they want to go on it.

[5256] Ray Rodriguez: Thank you Mr. Richards for trying to clear that up. We, I mean, over the years since I've been on the board, we pride ourselves on trying to work with the city and the chamber and whenever possible to use local vendors. And if not using the vendor, then we hopefully ask whoever gets a contract to hire locally as much as they can. As far as the painting, you can help me here, Mr. Richards. It's my understanding that we normally award the lowest responsible bid. So if it's the same contractor that has painted before and we're getting complaints on the painting, then wouldn't that disqualify them, it's a responsible bid, if the prior work that they've done for us is unsatisfactory. That's my question.

[5328] SPEAKER_29: Prior to this bidder coming forward to bring something to the board, I have not had any complaints from any of the sites. So this is actually the first I am hearing of it.

[5339] SPEAKER_52: Can I show you some pictures of what we did?

[5344] Ray Rodriguez: We already gave the opportunity, unless the president you know, allows you to come back up. So basically, if the board, instead of overriding it, well, overriding it, could you kind of explain that to me? Because my understanding is we don't want to award it to anybody else, but maybe we need time to maybe open it up for bidding again, or how does that,

[5375] SPEAKER_29: What is your explanation of overriding the... The board has the option of rejecting all bids on that particular package if the board wishes to do so and directing us to go back out again to do bids. We can certainly do that process again if that's the board's will. However, the one caveat to that is, of course, We're starting the bid process over. So those schools are going to be the farthest behind as far as getting done before school starts. Because as you know, this is a summer project. But that doesn't mean that we can't do that. We can certainly go through that process. We'll probably be bringing something forward to the board based on the timing we'd have to have for advertisements. I would say it'll be the June 27th board meeting before we'll be able to bring it to you. because we won't make June 6th, there's only three weeks until that board meeting but we have six weeks till June 27th, we could potentially make that board meeting for the schools that are part of that package.

[5425] SPEAKER_30: So, it looks like in the bid tabulation, there's a variance about 20, $27,000 between what is recommended and the bid by all professional. The document in question that wasn't submitted or was blank or whatnot. What was the nature of that document and is that document worth $28,000 or $23,000?

[5451] SPEAKER_29: The document is the questionnaire and the required information with regard to references and prior work that's done. As far as the detail of what's on it, Robert's here. I'm going to defer to him because I don't have a copy of it in front of me to tell you what all is on Schedule H, but I think he's got the contracts here.

[5478] SPEAKER_52: exactly what's on Schedule 8. I don't have it in front of me, but I will tell you, it's similar to what Brian said. We have to go by the public code. We've got to go back to procurement methods. And that has everything to do with how you present your bid package to us. And you have to go through that checklist, just like Brian had just talked to you about. And go through that. And if, like, say, if three people have the right checklist and you don't have the right checklist and you protest, then we can come back very easily have those two come back and protest, too, because of the fact that we overrode what really is basically the public code for bidding.

[5517] SPEAKER_30: So public code calls for taking the lowest bidder, unless you can prove subjectively that the bidder who's the lowest bidder is unresponsible or unresponsible, right?

[5528] SPEAKER_52: The public code talks about in low bid, and there's, of course, you have to enter in also into the best value, but that's a different subject. Right. Yeah, you have to take the low bidder that has qualified based on the criteria that you've asked him to deliver to you at the time of bid. Okay.

[5543] SPEAKER_30: So we've made a determination that our professional was unresponsive or unresponsible, therefore excluding them?

[5550] SPEAKER_52: They didn't provide the proper paperwork, and then also that their references did not turn out right. That's part of it as well, checking reference and making sure that the documentations are correct.

[5565] SPEAKER_30: Who did you contact for the references? Or is that, tell me if I'm out of bounds as far as asking that type of question in this session, as far as check references.

[5576] SPEAKER_29: The names of who's contacted, I don't have in front of me at the moment. I'd have to take a break for a couple minutes and go pull some detail out of my information that's in my office. The form itself is the questionnaire regarding qualifications and experience. It is the questionnaire that asks them to identify all public work contracts on which they've worked in the past three years, where they were a prime contractor with the public agency and the owner of record, the detailed information with regard to any such contracts, as well as the information with regard to the pre-qualification application, any settlement agreements or change orders or other documents that resolved any claims, lawsuits, or cross-complaints. payments that they've received from the public agency for the projects, including any settlements or change orders. And then with regard to those contracts, a number of days from the completion deadline and full and final completion of the projects, reasons for delays of completion, and as well as any where there were civil wage penalty assessments or whether there were determinations of civil penalties, and if so, why. It's just all of the general questions that we have to ask of all of our contractors with regard to their prior experience and any Difficulties that there were with prior jobs that we would check in any reference background check with any contractor.

[5649] SPEAKER_30: Okay, member Preciado.

[5651] SPEAKER_28: So Should I get this correctly? so our our our only options to either one accept the contract or go to bid or Are there other option?

[5663] SPEAKER_30: Not necessarily we can delay it until we get more information.

[5669] SPEAKER_29: All of those are true. The board could just determine to waive the requirement, award it to the lowest bidder, and then potentially have a protest from the other firms that submitted all the required documentation, as Robert was just saying. The board has pretty much flexibility on how they want to move forward at this point. However, before going down the road of awarding to someone that we haven't cleared all the paperwork on, I would recommend that we either go back out for a bid or we delay it long enough to pull more information together if there are additional questions that the board has on that item.

[5704] SPEAKER_30: I'm not a fan of awarding someone right now as far as, you know, just necessarily taking the lowest bid. I am, I would like to find out factually or not if the current paint jobs that were done over the summer indeed were deficient.

[5721] SPEAKER_28: That's where that, in terms of the process.

[5723] SPEAKER_30: Because right now it's just hearsay, right? Between this or that. So I'd like to actually see for myself to see if it actually is deteriorating or whatnot. Ms.

[5731] SPEAKER_36: Crocker. I see we have three packages. We're only talking about package number two, is that correct?

[5738] Mark Triplett: Correct.

[5739] SPEAKER_36: So the other two could go up to bid, as you have suggested.

[5742] SPEAKER_30: Or go to award.

[5743] SPEAKER_36: Or go to award, right? Correct. So we're talking about just the one package. Correct.

[5749] SPEAKER_30: OK. And the first two package are the lowest bid it looks like. So there is an issue there.

[5757] SPEAKER_30: It's a great point.

[5759] SPEAKER_36: It's a different company also.

[5760] SPEAKER_30: Yeah. Thomas.

[5762] Nancy Thomas: Um, I agree that we should delay till the next meeting and find out more about the quality of the paint job. Um, that was done last summer by the vendor that we're anticipating choosing. Um, and um, And if there is problems with that vendor, I think we'd be better off going out to bid again.

[5786] SPEAKER_30: Okay. So are we comfortable with moving forward perhaps with 1A and 1B since that's not in play, as Member Crocker mentioned, and then revisit package two at a later time? Is that appropriate?

[5800] SPEAKER_36: Would you just refresh us in terms of what sites are covered in 1A and 1B? Thank you. It was the junior high music and Lincoln we were talking about.

[5811] SPEAKER_30: Yeah. What we're delaying is junior high music and Lincoln. You're right. Correct. Okay. Is there a minute motion for what's presented?

[5826] Nancy Thomas: Who made the motion?

[5828] SPEAKER_30: I made a discussion point, but no one knows. There's no motion yet? No.

[5832] Nancy Thomas: Then we can make a motion.

[5836] SPEAKER_30: I shall entertain a motion if someone wants to provide it or I can make one myself.

[5842] Nancy Thomas: Well, I want someone to help me because I don't have it right in front of me. I would like to move that we approve the other two, which are which? Package 1A and 1B. Package 1A and 1B.

[5856] SPEAKER_30: And we hold off on Package 2 until we can further get additional information.

[5859] Nancy Thomas: And hold off on Package 2 until we can get more information. That's my

[5864] SPEAKER_30: Okay. Is there a second by Member Rodriguez? Please vote. Okay, five ayes. Thank you. 9.7, notice of completion for BGI, fencing and striping. Is there a motion to approve?

[5890] Nancy Thomas: I move that we approve.

[5891] SPEAKER_30: By Member Thomas. Is there a second?

[5894] SPEAKER_36: I'll second.

[5895] SPEAKER_30: Second by Member Crocker. Please vote. Five ayes. Thank you. 9.8 was pulled earlier. We're at 9.9, which is the 26th and 17th third interim report. Mr. Richards.

[5971] SPEAKER_29: Tonight, for the first time in a very long time, we come to the board with a third interim report. Third interim report is a little bit different than first interim and second interim in that there's a couple of things that we normally have to do at first and second interim that aren't part of the third interim report. We don't have a certification. We don't have criteria and standards. It's basically just an update for the county office's purposes with regard to where the numbers are coming in compared to second interim as they continue to monitor us going forward into budget adoption. It incorporates everything that's hit the system as of April the 30th, projects out again through the end of June. So the numbers are fairly similar to what they were at second interim. There are some changes but they're not dramatic because at this point of the year we don't receive a lot of late changes to either revenue or expenditures of significant dollar amount. Unrestricted general fund is projected to have about $47.4 million worth of revenue net. It actually comes in higher than that, but several million dollars get transferred to the restricted general fund at a local control funding formula out of the base to cover shortfalls in various categorical programs that we'll get to in a moment. But about $43.2 million or 91% of the unrestricted general fund comes from our local control funding formula, the combination of the base and the supplemental and concentration. About $2.3 million is other state programs. That's about 5% of the unrestricted budget. The majority of that is unrestricted lottery, not all of it, but a good chunk of it. There's other local funds of $815,000 and about $1 million of transfer in from Fund 17 that we utilized for cash flow purposes earlier in the year. And about $16,000 of unrestricted federal dollars. That's testing reimbursement money that we received from the federal government. The unrestricted expenditures are about $48.3 million projected right now. Of that number, about 88% of it is salaries and benefits, as we would expect in a school district, where the majority of what we provide for students is in the form of people teaching them, helping them, and providing services to them and to the sites. Our books and supplies are projected under $1 million this year. It's down quite a bit from prior years. up a little bit in the projection from second interim. Services and other operating expenses about 4.8 million or about 10 percent of the budget. Very little capital outlay. We don't usually spend a lot of money in capital outlay items in the unrestricted side of the budget. And then the other outgo, less indirect cost of about $208,000. The other outgo is money that we send over to the ROP. Netted against that is because you can't show negative pie is our indirect cost. So in the end, in the unrestricted general fund, we are projecting expenditures and inter-fund transfers out of about $48.3 million or a net decrease in fund balance of just under a million dollars, putting our ending fund balance at about 2.2. The projection with regards to components of the ending fund balance, stores and revolving cash are pretty steady in this district. They don't waiver all that much. Projected any balances of grants and donations that are planning for already for carryover for next year of about a hundred and sixty three thousand That's unchanged since second interim the adjustment to the 3% reserve for economic uncertainties based on projected expenditures Leaving us an undesignated fund balance of about twenty six thousand dollars one thing you'll notice that isn't there that was there at second interim is unrestricted lottery per the board's direction at second interim we are now projecting to Utilize the rest of unrestricted lottery to cover a transfer of salary expenses from the unrestricted general fund So we won't be showing that as projected in balance the restricted side of the budget start categorical programs The biggest piece alone is the contribution from the unrestricted side about seven and a half million dollars That is comprised up primarily of two things special education and its related special ed transportation, as well as the required contribution to routine restrictive maintenance fund, which is the equivalent of about two and a quarter percent of the unrestricted general fund at this time. We have federal revenue of about $2.3 million and state revenue of about 3.7. Combined, they're a little over a third the restricted budget, and then local funds of about $2.8 million. Our expenditures are projected to be about $17 million. Again, majority of it, about three quarters, is salary and benefits of our employees, about $700,000 in books and supplies, as well as about $3 million in services and other operating expenses. They make up a higher percentage on the restricted side than the unrestricted side, largely because of certain things that we do in the restricted that we don't do in the unrestricted, such as our non-public schools costs, which all run under services and other operating expenses. But the restricted general fund is projected to spend a little bit more than it's bringing in. That's not unusual because you're always spending some of your prior year carryover in the categorical programs because usually they have a, well frequently, not always, some allow you to carry over for multiple years. Many times funds come in cycles that allow you to spend over a two year period. So therefore you end up allocating a portion of it to carry over into the next fiscal year even as we are projecting to do now. So at this time, the changes are not significant from second interim to third interim. That is also true in all of the other funds of the district. Everything is tracking very similar to what it looked like about a month and a half ago when we did the last report. We aren't projecting significant differences in any of the other funds of the district, and none of them are projecting to end with a negative fund balance, which is one of the things that the county will look for with regard to all of our funding sources in the district. And at this time, they're all projected to be about where they've been. Enrollment. And I don't know what happened to the graphic here. It's really goofy looking. It's like it got whited over. ADA. Oh, boy. OK. I don't know what happened in the conversion from PowerPoint to PDF, but something went really wacky. But the numbers on the right are correct. So we'll look at those. Sorry, the graphic is just a really strange looking graphic. The overall news is that it's down. And it's not down any differently than it was at second interim as far as enrollment. Our enrollment this year, as you know, calculates on Seabeds Day, which is on the first Wednesday of October. So we were at 5,845. That number is still unchanged. It's actually down one student from first interim. But that was because we had a late adjustment to the CALPADS data that happened after first interim. Lost one student to the County Office of Ed. Our average daily attendance, again, something went goofball with the graphic and the conversion to PDF. But as I mentioned at the last budget study session, our attendance data came in for P2 and we did come in lower than our average has been over the past few years. Still better than it was back in the decade between 2000 and 2010. From 2010 forward we've actually had a string of really good years with one bad with one slight exception in the 12 13 school year. Unfortunately the winter of 16 17 as we know was a very rainy wet one and a lot of flu went around and so our average daily attendance dropped to 96 and a quarter percent. We've been averaging right around 97 for some time. But. Hopefully, things will pick up and we'll have a better, healthier year in the year ahead. In the meantime, our projections still look relatively unchanged from what we talked about at our previous budget study sessions and where we were at second interim. And that is because third interim is as of April 30. We know the board gave us additional information and direction at the last school board meeting, but that happened in the month of May. So it is not yet incorporated into our numbers. We will be bringing it forward. in three weeks when we bring the preliminary budget to the board. But as of right now, the projections are still built on where we were at second interim. So the numbers are not significantly different from what you have seen in the past. So the county office of education receives our report. The board does not actually certify it. I just need you to authorize me to send it to the county. There's no certification form for the president to sign for this particular one. As the board knows, the May revise came out. We're going to talk about the May revise later on tonight when we get to the budget study session, some of the changes that the governor's office has put forward. However, even the May revise is not the actual budget. The legislature is now working on building the budget. It's in committee at this time. They have to send it back to the governor on the 15th of June. We're going to build our budget anyway based on what we know now for the May revise plus the additional information we've been talking about through our last four study sessions, our last three plus the one tonight. and then we'll have our first budget hearing three weeks and our second budget hearing will be three weeks after that on the 27th. So we'll adopt our budget before the state adopts theirs most likely and then the governor will spend the last week of June signing trailer bills and getting the budget adopted assuming that the legislature's on time. It's amazing how that law change that started taking away their salary suddenly made the budget a priority in the month of June. Meanwhile for our budget development for 17-18 We're still following our calendar. We're still moving forward with our budget study sessions. We're having one shortly. We're still looking at reductions of FTE, the decline of students that we've had over the past several years, and we're still budgeting on our somewhat lower methodology than the demographers are saying. We actually see gains out of the new developments, but hopefully that will be coming next year as much more of them have been completed over the course of the current school year. So by summer hopefully we'll have a lot of families moving in. And we just started budget modeling actually yesterday and this morning because the county had to roll over some things for us. They got it done on Monday. So we're now in the process of doing the budget modeling. We'll be spending the rest of our week working on that. The cash flow does not look significantly different than it did at second interim. No child left behind maintenance of effort. Things change there. So our certification still looks fine. Our inter-district transfers are significantly unchanged from the prior. And because there's no certification, the report's a lot shorter tonight. So are there questions from the board?

[6633] SPEAKER_30: Member Thomas?

[6635] Nancy Thomas: Yes. I noticed on page 6 of 107, you say enrollment for 2016-17 is 5,845. And then on the next line, you say projected enrollment for 2016-17 is 5,826. That should say 17-18. And 18-19.

[6657] SPEAKER_30: Typo.

[6658] Nancy Thomas: It's a typo. I'm telling you about a typo, I guess, because that was the question that I couldn't reconcile the numbers. So you might want to fix that.

[6673] SPEAKER_29: Page 6. I'm going to bring up my electronic file so I can see what you're saying.

[6677] Nancy Thomas: Yeah. The first line first and second lines under revenues on page 6 of 107 says enrollment. I also want to show that I read it.

[6698] SPEAKER_29: Oh, that's in the multi-year assumption section. Okay. Yeah, that should say 17, 18, 18, 19. You are correct. So we'll fix that before it goes to county.

[6711] SPEAKER_30: Thank you, Mr. Richards. So do I have a motion to approve the submission to the county pending that correction of the typo? I'll move. By Member Sciarra, is there a second? Second. Second by Member Rodriguez. Please vote. Great, five ayes. Thank you. Employee organizations, LUMA, NTA, CSA.

[6752] SPEAKER_40: Hello, everyone. I wasn't going to talk because you're doing the budget after my talk. I am going to say something in regards to the budget study session. I know the budget revise is just in. We're going on Friday to review the budget review. And I'm a little frustrated in the fact that this budget study is, and I'm assuming it's part of proposals that are coming into what to do with the budget issues that we're addressing. But my concerns are we are already pretty thin on positions across the district, not just CSCA, but I believe we're short in probably just about any position you've got going. But when I see things like let's not hire from not, let's freeze non-essential hiring, when do we hire non-essentially? Obviously there's a position available and there's a need to fill in order to hire. So you're cutting positions that we need and NTA and CSCA are still in negotiations and we've been put off for months because of the budget issues. that are at hand at the district and not knowing what's going on with the state. And then there's a proposal that says let's cut a day work reduction for the district. And my concern is, and I don't want to give numbers because I don't want to, I know Brian's going to come up and talk about it anyway, but I think those numbers might be reversed. How can NTA and CSCA have higher amounts of work deduction days than your management and supervision across the board. The salaries alone are much higher than what we make on ours. So that 1% that you're talking about cutting in those positions, shouldn't they be a little higher on the management side than they are on the CSCA side? I just, I'm sort of frustrated in where we're going after we fought so hard to get money into the district and to work real hard to keep it here and how I've watched this district over the last few years spend and throw away money. And I just hope when we really come down to making those uncomfortable decisions, because I know nobody cuts people and cuts salaries because they want to, I just really hope that you dig deep and find another way to do it without hitting our employees and our district, because it's going to affect our kids in the long run.

[6937] SPEAKER_33: Thanks.

[6939] SPEAKER_30: Thank you. NEWMA NTA, I don't see anyone. Moving on to consent agenda 11.2. Is there a move for approval? So moved. By member Rodriguez. Is there a second? Second. Second by member Preciado. Please vote. Five ayes, thank you. We now move on to the series of consent items, 12.1 through 12.6. We do have a public speaker on 12.4, Ms. Cindy Parks.

[6983] Cindy Parks: Good evening. Every 30 to 60 days on the agenda, there are the district warrants, a list of checks that are issued. It tells a story. This list includes the name of the payee, the reason for the check, the amount, a series of account codes that break down which fund, resource, function, manager, which site, et cetera. Ed Code section 17605 states the governing board by majority vote may adopt a rule delegating to any officer or employee of the district as the board may designate the authority to purchase supplies, materials, apparatus, equipment, and services. It goes on to say that all transactions entered into by the officer or employee shall be reviewed by the governing board every 60 days. I'm sure you would agree, as the governing board of the school district, you are ultimately responsible for the fiscal solvency of the district. I hope all of you take the time each month to review these warrants. In the report before you this evening, I noticed a few transactions. Did you notice? On page 4, 10, and 11, there's $995 worth of checks issued to the city of Newark for a police and fire alarm program. I brought this to your attention previously over the last several years. Could this money have been better used by servicing the students in this district? Are you even looking at them to see what options $136 charge. And that's the only way that this can be put into effect to stop these charges. On page 23. Mister Richard's credit card statement shows a $136 charge. It was made for a parking citation. It's not even legal. At the conclusion of my speech, I look forward to hearing the answer to that charge. are construction builders. For the Newark Memorial High School mat room storage damage, the storm damage, how can that be? The roof was just replaced at the junior high the summer of 2015. I heard the roof collapsed on the wrestling mats and in the mat room, and that those mats weren't even replaced. My son and son-in-law wrestled in this district. And I believe I wouldn't want any wrestlers wrestling on mats that have had debris from the roof and all of the moisture that would come from that. Why did the roof collapse less than two years after being replaced? Also, a community member shot video over the junior high for the bond committee. And there was a red stain on the east side of the office wing and a green standing water algae looking puddle on the west side. And this is the office wing of the junior high. I brought to the attention of the MOT Director and the Vanner Project Manager these two stains. I wonder if anyone has checked this issue out on the new roof. Before my questions are answered, please remember Ed Code Section 17605. You are responsible for reviewing these transactions. And if I could get an answer to my question about the, not really, I mean, I would like to know if there is anything in place to try and reduce the alarms. And then I would like to know about the parking citation and the junior high roof situation.

[7195] SPEAKER_30: So we don't have time to answer the question now. Can we get the information and respond to the board via an update and send that to Ms. Parks as well? Unless you have some of the answers now.

[7206] SPEAKER_29: I do have a couple of the answers now. A couple of them we're going to have to bring back. With regard to the alarms, I'm going to have to get some data from the maintenance and operations department. I don't have anything on that at this time. While you may have heard, that the mats have not yet been replaced at junior high school, which is true because they went out to get multiple quotes. They just received them and actually their purchase order is in process at this time. So it is coming, but it isn't there yet. With regard to the cause of the damage at the junior high school, there was an area of debris that Was blown from the storm from tree limbs slash stuff that pierced The roof that caused the damage that flooded the mat room that that was all part of that So it's actually all part of an insurance claim related to the storm that multiple districts have had to submit together The Kenan is working on so but it was related to storm damage that occurred up on the roof and Again, that's all part of a transaction that's in process. And actually, the ticket, I don't have any problem talking about that because I had to ask the same question because I did not know what happened until I saw the bill come in. It actually was a school bus that got ticketed in the city of San Francisco during a field trip that was not in the location evidently that it was supposed to be. And so it's actually still being contested by the maintenance department, but we were hitting a deadline for the fine to increase. So we've processed it and are continuing to work against it.

[7312] Cindy Parks: I'm a little confused because it's the mat room, and the mat room is on the back side of the junior high. And I really can't remember any trees that are back there. There's a swimming pool back there. And my understanding is that the damage was caused by a buildup of liquid because the gutters weren't properly maintained, so that's not an accurate story.

[7336] SPEAKER_29: Okay. Then you've got a different story than I've got.

[7340] Cindy Parks: So I'm just kind of wondering because junior high, there's no trees on the back side.

[7344] SPEAKER_30: We're talking about swimming pool. So what I'm interested to know about that project since it was recently done. Is that not covered under warranty? And is that because we didn't, we failed to maintain it as prescribed?

[7357] SPEAKER_29: If, if indeed it was because of a backup that occurred in the drainage system, uh, then that's not going to be related to a warranty. That's going to be related to a maintenance item.

[7365] SPEAKER_30: So this wasn't related to defective work whatsoever then? No.

[7369] Ray Rodriguez: Okay. Thank you. If it's an insurance claim, then the process is already in place for the investigation and for us to be reimbursed. That's normally the way that works. There was a lot of debris during the storms that was flying. Even if there are no trees, they was flying from everywhere. But if that's an insurance claim in place, then that should take care of it, I would hope.

[7392] SPEAKER_29: Well, whether it was debris within it or whether it was debris that was on top of it that ended up in it, either way, I do know it is part of a pending claim that's being processed. So that will get looked at. If it is or is not allowable, then they'll let us know. we are in relation to our MRL.

[7409] Ray Rodriguez: And then the gutters is something that maybe we can get something in the Friday update.

[7415] Cindy Parks: Let me just add on to that. The reason I bring up the gutters is that's the story that I had kind of heard, and also when I had brought up to the project manager for Banner about the stains on the top of the roof, I was told that there was gutter, there could be gutter issues. So that's why it played into that.

[7431] SPEAKER_30: Ms. Thomas.

[7433] Nancy Thomas: Oh, I'm just curious about the parking ticket. Now, if If someone is driving one of our buses and got a speeding ticket, that would be very bad and that would not be something that we would cover. Why are we, are we planning to cover the cost of that parking ticket or, and if it's, is it, is it the problem of the bus driver or is it, or something that we deal with? How do, you know, how do you

[7459] SPEAKER_29: It's the first time I've incurred it in my career. So in this case, it was a parking ticket related to where the bus was parked for the bus was stopped. The students had gotten off of the bus, and it wasn't moved out of wherever it needed to be in a timely fashion, and it got ticketed. Beyond that, I don't have enough detail to be able to tell you more about it without getting more information from the transportation department.

[7488] Ray Rodriguez: Well, we don't need to engage in this.

[7492] SPEAKER_30: So thank you.

[7499] SPEAKER_28: Any further discussions? It would be understanding what is the policy and procedure related to these types of processes, not specifically saying what happened on this particular day. Right, yeah.

[7511] SPEAKER_30: curious because I, you know, so is there a move to approve consent item series 12.1 through 12.6? I move to approve by member Thomas or second second by member Rodriguez. Please vote. Okay. Five eyes. Thank you. We do not have any student expulsions today. And at this point, we will go into the board study session number four. Mr. Richards, or?

[7548] SPEAKER_28: So we did talk to the board, right? Did we do talk to the board?

[7552] Aiden Hill: Yeah, we did.

[7554] Ray Rodriguez: Yeah, the whole series. Yeah. Can we take, well, no, it's done.

[7559] SPEAKER_30: Go ahead, Mr. Richards. Study session.

[7565] SPEAKER_27: We can move down there if you want, or would you rather stay up here? I think we should stay up here. OK, that's fine. Anybody want a snack while we transition? Yeah, let's do that. I didn't eat dinner, so I'm going to have another snack.

[7605] SPEAKER_32: . . ... ... ... . .

[7820] SPEAKER_32: You. ... ...

[7883] SPEAKER_30: We'll come back.

[7890] SPEAKER_29: Good evening. For the focus of tonight's study session, and even though we have not yet, as Susan noted, been to the school services update with regard to the Mayor Byes, because it's this coming Friday, they're actually starting their process tomorrow in Sacramento. I do have some information from them. I'm not going to just read their entire report to you. It's six pages long of a lot of information, but I'm going to hit a few highlights and then we'll talk about the effects of the May revise and what that changes, the numbers that we've been talking about over the past several weeks as we're looking forward. As Susan mentioned earlier in the evening, the May revise does have some good news, some bad news, and a little bit of a mixture in between. So the good news, a little bit of good news, the COLA went up by just a teeny bit from 1.48% to 1.56. The counter side to that is the out year COLAs are now all projected lower. because it's looking like the economy is slowing down a little bit from the robust pace it had had, so the governor is dampening his projections in the out years. Interestingly enough, the LAO came out today with their initial response to the May revise, and while in January they said the governor's numbers were way too low, they're now saying that they're right about dead on with what the governor's office is saying. They're within a very small dollar amount apart. The other piece of good news is with regard to the local control funding formula funding gap percentage. It was only at 23% in January. It's up to 43% in almost 44% as of the May revise. So that does boost us up a little bit in funding. For us it's almost a wash from the bad news that we had a couple weeks ago when our ADA for P2 came in. We had projected a The effects of the decline of the percentage of ADA rolling forward was very bad news for us, but this basically neutralized the effects of that for our district. But there were some other little odd turns that were incorporated into the budget, some good and some bad. The first one that's good news is the elimination of the current year deferral. The January budget projected deferring the June apportionment into July which would put us back into the battle days of when in one year it started out as one apportionment and it grew to two to three to five to the point at which we had 40% of our dollars coming in a year late. They're at the worst of times with regard to deferrals from the state. So the fact that they immediate that they, one of the first actions they took was to get rid of the deferral is actually very good news. We're not going to lay on that as an ongoing source of revenue for the state. Of more concern is that the proposal suspends Prop 98 for three years, the Test 3B repayment system. So basically, the state doesn't have the money to fund Test 2 of Proposition 98. When that happens, we go into Test 3A and Test 3B. And when after having had a year where we fall out into test 3 or into a non-test 2 year, in the out years, the state has an obligation to make it up. If they don't fund us fully, the amount for test 2, because statewide revenues aren't there, then in the out years, they have to catch us up. And test 3B says that they have to catch us up at the same rate that the rest of the state is catching up. So by suspending 3B, The governor's office doesn't have to catch education up at the same pace as the rest of the budget, or basically they can just hold off on making us whole when Prop 98 is underfunded because of a delay or a reduction in state revenue. Additionally, the proposal looks at recasting prior years Prop 98 after the fact for the first time. to basically say we over-appropriated, oops, we're going to cast the number lower and then take it out in a future year. That's a new twist on Prop 98 and really trying to turn what the original law created as a floor for education funding and really trying to hard cap it into a ceiling. It's a bit problematic. It is going to require the legislature to agree to suspend. An agreement to suspend Prop 98 does require a supermajority. But it is out there as a proposal as part of the May revise. So it's something to be concerned about The one-time funding that was proposed in January of a quarter of a billion dollars statewide is now at a billion dollars however with a new caveat And because we're about 0.1 of a percent of the district for us. It would bump that quarter of a million dollars potentially to a million dollars for us, but now the entire funding is being deferred to May of 2019 because the governor wants the opportunity to do a back look onto Prop 98 after the fact to say, if there's not enough money there, they'll ratchet that million dollar or the billion dollar statewide downward to a lower number so that they don't end up raising Prop 98. Why that becomes a challenge for us is that if the money's not coming until May of 2019, we can't spend it in 17-18. The state wants us to book it in 17-18. They want to get credit for themselves of funding education in 17-18 for it. But the reality is we're not going to see a penny until at the earliest May 15 of 2019, and we may not see 100% of the money. So at this point, the recommendation that I'm hearing both from CASBO and from school services is don't book the money in either year because We're definitely not going to get it in 17-18, and it's in significant risk in 18-19 until we actually see an award sometime in the 18-19 school year. So at this point, we're going to hang on to not having budget for the one-time money. And so because we hadn't budgeted it yet, we just know now at this point we're not going to add it. However, that may cause some. It'll be interesting to see how Sacramento reacts because It sounds like so far that the districts are not going to book it and they're going to want to know why when we go to adopt our budgets. But we can't afford to go out and loan the state statewide a billion dollars or for our district a million dollars because we simply don't have it. But in 18-19 we'll bring it back if indeed we do have money and we'll be able to utilize it at that time. This is the same chart you've seen for the past two study sessions updated for the local control funding formula to see how things look after the May revise. So that negative $1,080,000 that we had as far as a reduction year over year in local control funding formula dollars as a district is now down back into the $700,000 range that it was earlier. And that's just a function of the decline, primarily of the declining involvement in the district. and the effects of that because, again, next year will be funded on this year unless next year our enrollment goes up. And we won't know that for sure as on an ADA number until spring. So for the purposes of budget development, we're going to have to budget based on current year. So that puts our average deficit back to 4.3, down from the 4.8 that we were talking about at the last board meeting. And it, as I mentioned, basically wiped out where we were and put us back to where we were before we had the P-2 ADA nudes. And Susan mentioned earlier these two screens.

[8365] SPEAKER_27: Please go back a slide.

[8365] SPEAKER_29: Sure. Give us a minute to look at that one. Absolutely. So what this slide is showing you is that the average deficit, and again, this is assuming nothing from Fund 17, just the spending on the natural, is about $4.3 million a year. The bottom bullet, if we can get our ADA back up to our average, which is 97.03%, that three quarters of a percent will take us ahead quite a bit. So it becomes critical, because we're projecting now based on our current year actuals going forward. And so every bit helps. When you're talking a 1% or three quarters of a percent actually increase for a district of our size, it's about four or five hundred thousand dollars. We're talking that variation in ADA alone. So that will be of significant help to us. Now, I just want to correct one word that was when Susan mentioned these two slides earlier. These are not proposals. They are not recommendations. These were just samples that we gave the board two board meetings ago to kind of get us our minds around the size of the scope of what a deficit of that size means and give us what an equivalent would be. So we're not proposing a one-day work year reduction. However, if we were to do one, this is what the dollar amount would be. And this is looking at the unrestricted and partially restricted general fund only. It is not looking at other funds. It is not looking at restricted categoricals that make themselves whole. It's just looking at the bottom line of what affects the unrestricted and the partially restricted general fund. But it is about $264,000. And yes, there are enough members in NTA and CSCA. And the amounts of their salaries are such that the amount of savings in a work year reduction is greater in those. That's across their entire bargaining unit. compared to management, confidential, and supervisory. And the same is true in a 1% situation. And the last discussion that we had at our last study session was about the three scenarios. And we walked away from the meeting with basically the idea that we would look at freezing non-essential hiring, cutting non-salary expenses to the extent that we can immediately, both for this year and next year, and then making additional cuts in 18-19 so that we can get to the full amount that we need to be reduced and then use Fund 17's reserve as necessary in that first year to get us to where we need to be so that we can do full implementation moving forward in 18-19. So that is kind of where we are at this point. We do not have a budget model yet for the board to review. As I mentioned earlier in the previous presentation, Part of our process as a county dependent district requires that we get our data to a certain point and then the county has to open up some things for us to be able to build budget models in the new year. And the county opened up our position or rolled our positions for the new year so that we can start building budget models on Monday. So my staff was working today for the first time on getting our first budget models rolled. so that we'll be bringing those forward to the board at our next board meeting in the form of an actual budget document in draft form for our first budget hearing. We do not have those yet at this time because as I mentioned, we just started building it today. We're now underway with that. We'll have our public hearing in three weeks and then we'll hear more about the governor's budget this coming Friday. We do have some information already and I've got some information about things that are not the general fund that are not part of the slide presentation. that I just have here on my computer from a school services update that I received that I do want to share with the board because some of them answered questions from earlier tonight and from other questions that I've received. The overall inflation rate is projected to rise from about 1.3% to just over 2%. The good news is the employment rate is not spiking right now. Things are looking pretty good on the employment side for the moment. But moving out of Prop 98, just scroll down here. The special education, there's no huge amount of funding increase for special ed. They do get the COLA on the state funds, so that piece is unchanged. And they are still working with the statewide group that they've created on looking at adjustments to the special ed funding formula, but at this point we're still gonna be on AB 602, so there's no significant change on special education funding. But the child care and preschool, there's actually two prongs of increase that are included in the budget. One is a 10% increase in the reimbursement rate over the last adjustment period, which was in 15-16. So that will increase the amount of funding that they're receiving on a per unit rate as well as funding to increase the number of slots by 2,959. That doesn't sound like a whole lot, especially when you think about the fact we have 1,000 school districts in the state. That's about three per district. However, not every school district offers this program. So they will open up a round, and we will go through the application process, as Mr. Sanchez mentioned earlier this evening. The overall investment, is about $111 million out of the non-Prop 98 side of the budget and $127 million from the Prop 98 side. But that's a statewide number. Talked about the discretionary funding already. Career Tech Ed, the final installment of the $200 million for the three-year grant program that Mission Valley ROP participates in and that we supported with setting their funding rate from our district to use as matching funding for that program. is now funded for its final installment for next year. So that is moving forward. And I think that is going to end, other than opening up for discussion, next steps, additional questions, and anything else that the board would like to talk about related to budget development for 17-18.

[8764] SPEAKER_30: Member Thomas?

[8766] Nancy Thomas: I'm curious about the LCAP. there's a lot of figures in the LCAP. The LCAP's very dense and difficult to read. It's my understanding, I notice you're saying here that the budgeting models are just now available for you to do budgeting, but it seems to me that there are a lot of dollars being projected in the LCAP for next year and the following three years. It also seems that A lot of what we did in the LCAP in the last two or three years was a result of a lot of one-time funding from the state that has now gone away. Is that correct? So what has been yours and Ed Services' involvement in terms of determining what numbers are in the first draft of the LCAP and how they affect the budget? In other words, the $4 million that we're projecting in deficit spending, does that assume people looking at the LCAP and not spending as much because the one-time money for professional development has gone away?

[8846] SPEAKER_29: The LCAP has changed somewhat over what we have been used to seeing with regard to what all's incorporated into it now. The funding in the LCAP is not one-time money for the most part. The supplemental and concentration dollars are ongoing dollars. The dollar amount that they're a part of is basically flat going into next year. The majority of the decline of funding in the local control funding formula is on the base side, not on the supplemental and concentration side. So the dollar amount, we did have a spike of one-time site-related expending in the prior school year, but that was not part of the current year or next year's LCAP. That was the prior year's LCAP. So that one-time spending went away with the one-time funding that went away. But the rest of what's in the LCAP is not a one-time funding source. And even some of the other matching funds that are in there with regard to some of Title I gets incorporated because it's being used in conjunction with supplemental and concentration. And that is also an ongoing funding source. Although it is flat, it's not getting much of an increase because the feds are not increasing our rates at this time.

[8919] Nancy Thomas: Yeah, but the question I had was how are you, the LCAP based funding or the LCFF based funding is where we have to look to make cuts. The base funding is included in the LCAP, isn't that right?

[8937] SPEAKER_29: The supplemental and concentration traditionally primarily has been in the LCAP. The base funding now, the base funding can, you can incorporate things that you're doing in base funding into the specific items that are in your LCAP. And there's also a new section at the beginning of the LCAP for items that aren't specifically delineated, which is basically where the rest of base ends up. In that front section of the LCAP is just a giant lump sum. With regard to general ed, like we don't list every single teacher in the district that's being paid for out of the unrestricted general fund. But technically, the unrestricted general fund is part of the local control funding formula. The local control funding formula, the other way around, is part of the unrestricted general fund. But that level of detail is not required in the LCAP. What is required to be completely detailed out in the LCAP is the supplemental and concentration dollars, and then any other dollars from other sources that are supplementing the programs that are identified within the LCAP.

[8990] Nancy Thomas: I just don't understand.

[8992] SPEAKER_29: So if we go back and, you know, let me bring up a prior slide because we'll talk about the seven buckets for just a minute. So, the local control funding formula has seven pieces to it.

[9004] SPEAKER_30: So, Mr. Richards, I'm sorry to cut you off. Would it be, I don't know if this is going to make progress as far as getting folks to understand the complex nature of LCFF and LCAP. Can you provide us with just like the FICMAC, you know, two-page explanation of what it is and then we can read it? at a later time, I don't know, that may be more effective than having to go, having, trying to educate us now on what LCAP is.

[9034] SPEAKER_29: Yes, we can do that, but I'm going to do one thing and see if we can. Do the one thing. If we get to the heart of Nancy's question. Okay. On here, when you look at 16-17 and 17-18, this is the local control funding formula. The base, that 45.8 million in the current year, the 45.1 million in the second year out, is not required to be detailed out in detail within the LCAP. The second section that says supplemental and concentration, the $4.9 million in each year, that is what has to be detailed out in the LCAP, along with any money that we're spending from any other funding source, including the sources up above, towards the goals that we've identified within the LCAP. So the LCAP must show at least $4.9 million. It does not have to show the entire $50 million of what we're doing in the district.

[9079] Nancy Thomas: OK, but in developing the LCAP and showing those base dollars, have you and services work together to identify areas for next year that we don't need to spend money that we spent last year and the year before is what I'm looking at.

[9097] SPEAKER_29: That process has been ongoing between Kim, Janet, Leti and myself for the past month and a half and we're continuing with that as we're continuing to build. When I say opening up the budget models we're talking about our escape computer program where we interact with the county where we're actually building every single line item that actually builds into the budget. The LCAP is not at that level of detail.

[9120] Nancy Thomas: OK, but the LCAP doesn't, in its preamble, it doesn't say next year we will be spending X number of dollars less because of our budget woes or anything. It's just not in there. So I don't see anything in there.

[9137] SPEAKER_14: And I think if I can add, that's really not the meat or the content is really that 4.9 where you really see the programs and services that are directly for the school sites or for students. I think the above the first green line, that's really where it's not the details. And so to be candid, we, I guess in terms of programs and services out of its services, we're really not touching that first part. That first part stays as is, but the programs and services is really below the line, the 4.9. And so when we built the draft of the LCAP, we actually worked on projected, knowing that we were still waiting for the May revise and looking at the numbers after third interim. So we're going to look at it again where you're going to get more detailed. And certainly if there's areas where we need to make some adjustments, that'll happen. But just looking at that number, what we were really looking at is really even 4.7. So I'm looking at that number that might be closer to what is really available. programs and services, so I hope that helps.

[9198] SPEAKER_30: Member Rodriguez.

[9201] Ray Rodriguez: Mr. Richards, on your, basically your last page where we talk about next steps, so right now the May revise, so now the discussion begins with the legislators as far as, you know, where to go based on the Governor's May revise. The first public hearing shows on June 6th. Now, my understanding is that whether, you know, all the different organizations that we're involved in, if we're talking about Proposition 98 and we're upset because it's being rolled back two years and we need it now, this is when all the different organizations that we're involved in go up to Sacramento and, or we can lobby our, elected officials about the fact that you know we're not happy with the Prop 98 you know being put off to you know for a couple of years. So this is when everything happens and then the public hearing that would be when representatives would approach at that particular meeting to or I'm sure that's done beforehand where we all the So I'm just trying to get an idea of the process between now and when the governor gets the budget on the 15th.

[9285] SPEAKER_29: We're talking about two different things, and I didn't delineate them. Sometimes I'll show them side by side. Here I intermixed them. I'm talking about our district's first public hearing on the budget will be June 6, not the state. The state is already beginning their hearings now. No, no, I understand that. Right. That's our first public hearing on our budget is on June the 6th. That's the day of our next board meeting.

[9305] Ray Rodriguez: OK.

[9307] SPEAKER_29: As far as the rest of your question, the first half of your question, the answer is yes. Now is the time when everybody's lobbying everybody with regard to things that should or should not be in the budget, and the board may or may not choose to do some of that of its own. for the purposes of building the budget and getting a document that we can approve on June 27th and call it the budget for the beginning of the year. Everything's going to be built based on the information that's in the May revise. We can't build off of what the legislature may or may not do in the month of June because we don't have the luxury of time after they act. So that is why there's a provision in law where if the budget that the governor signs on June the 30th is substantively different than the May revise, then we have the ability in 45 days to come back and bring a revision to the budget to the board, which we would do in August.

[9353] Ray Rodriguez: Right. I understand. Thank you. Thank you for breaking it down.

[9356] SPEAKER_30: Member Crocker.

[9360] SPEAKER_36: Sorry, I just wanted to underline what was said in terms of the base LCAP is our base budget. So we manipulate that every time we do a budget thing. So that when it goes in the LCAP, it reflects what we have done with our budget, because this is most of the money we have to spend. The supplemental concentration would be much more individual schools, as well as professional development, that kind of thing. So that would change as the money is available. So that when a school sets up their budget, or things like supplemental or concentration, they know what they have, money-wise, right? And then they set up the programs they want that are unique to their school to take care of these issues. So it's not a matter of spending one-time money, because you can't assume the program is going to repeat itself from one year to the next. You have to base what you're going to do on the money that you're going to get for the next year. Does that make sense?

[9433] SPEAKER_30: Makes sense to me. I don't have any questions regarding LCAP and ICFF. We have a guest speaker. Ms. Parks.

[9464] Cindy Parks: So I have some questions. The page that Mr. Richards was just, just put up about the supplemental and concentration. If I understand, here's your LCAP, 148 pages of it or whatever. I printed it off and I've been marking it as I've been working my way through it. So I guess I'm not understanding that what's been built right here is just the supplemental and concentration, the numbers that are entered in here, is that's all that's in here? I'm confused because I didn't think that.

[9505] SPEAKER_29: I understand the confusion. And the answer is, no, it's not just that. As I mentioned earlier, you have to incorporate supplemental and concentration. But if you're doing something that is split funded between supplemental and concentration and other dollars, The other dollars that are part of the item, you have to include the item at its full dollar amount. So then it becomes something that's multiple funded. And so you'll see either various sources or you'll see multiple resource codes identified within there.

[9532] Cindy Parks: But I guess my point here is that I don't see, as this is not the first time in all of the years that I've come to board meetings, that the district has been in the financial straits that it's in. So I guess I'm not understanding the process that I'm seeing or not seeing this time in that Maybe it's more that you have more time because you have your Russian money sitting there to supplement your deficits. And so you're kind of deferring still a little. You are because you didn't go with plan one that was proposed at the last time. You are deferring.

[9567] Nancy Thomas: Oh, the Russian $4 million, you mean. You didn't. No, no.

[9569] Cindy Parks: We're given three options at the last budget meeting. You were given one where you start doing stuff right now. There was two that some of you supported. There was three. that really nobody supported that. They supported the 2.5 version. So you're not starting things now, which is kind of what the process was before. So I'm not seeing that immediate where there's cuts on the table. Right now I feel like kind of what Ms. Thomas was saying is that I'm not seeing where the cuts are. I'm not seeing where in this plan. This is your money that you have that you're going to have to cut something out of. So I'm not seeing where you're saying, we're not going to do this program now. I see continuation of everything that you're doing before. And even some programs that were specially funded, like E3, you had originally gotten special money for. And it's continuing. And now you're paying the full burden of it. You know, I'm just kind of, you know, and I'm understanding that based on what I've seen social media is that now it's being worked into the contract. So I guess this is what I'm not understanding. I'm not seeing the cuts. You know, you keep saying you're going to cut, but I'm not seeing that. And that's where I'm just kind of wondering how this is all being worked out.

[9652] SPEAKER_30: Okay. So we look forward to the budget model that you're going to adopt and identify where we can those efficiencies, right, in regards to what's on the table.

[9663] SPEAKER_29: That's all going to be part of the actual budget model that we bring forward at the next board meeting on June the 6th. Yeah, so we're going to see some of that. As well as the LCAP, the next revision of the LCAP will be the 6th as well.

[9675] SPEAKER_30: Thank you. And then perhaps between now and then, maybe a two-page primer on LCFF for the public to see, or just as an explanation.

[9687] SPEAKER_27: Just to clarify for the audience, I think that the other component, I think part of the thing I want to clarify is, first of all, we're not there yet. And right now we're not making any decisions or specific actions to make those reductions right now. There's also a large chunk of this that is part of negotiations that we will not be discussing in open forum like this. So that's another factor I can clarify. The funding for E3 is continuing next year and that is not coming out of general fund. That will be grant funded for one more year. That is a fact. That's not being funded out of general fund. But I do think that that's part of the challenge is being able to just clarify that what I understand supplemental concentration to be is required to be identified in LCAP. anything out of the base can be or cannot be added. So I think that's kind of how we need to clarify that. And I agree with maybe a one-page primer about kind of the 101 around it, because it has changed. So I just wanted to make a few points of clarification. Thank you.

[9756] Nancy Thomas: Could I make a comment about the LCAP? In reading the beginning part of the LCAP, where you kind of summarize it and everything, It doesn't feel like a... Is this budget related though?

[9771] SPEAKER_30: Because I think we do have LCAP being that we can discuss LCAP, right? Okay. We have a guest speaker. We're at 9.43 and we still have to go back to closed session as well. So, Angela.

[9786] SPEAKER_18: I just have a question about ADA. It seems like it's important. Are there any new ideas out there on how to increase that? Or is it just going to continue doing what parents are currently asked to do? I try to get my kid there. But it's money.

[9806] SPEAKER_27: Thank you. If I may, I would like to invite you to our end of year meeting where we'll be providing some of that information, board goals, and an update for the public. And that will be May 31st. You'll hear more about that in this meeting. I'm sorry. No, we have one in the end of May that's part of the superintendent community engagement series. And we'll be sharing some of those thinking relative to the goals that the board has set. OK. Ms. Crocker?

[9834] SPEAKER_36: No longer would speak.

[9835] SPEAKER_30: OK. Thank you. Any more discussion on the board study session 14.1?

[9848] SPEAKER_28: I just want to say that we should just keep in mind in terms of as this process develops that we might have to have additional like study sessions or longer discussions once we are discussing the scenarios. because I just wanted to put that out there.

[9867] SPEAKER_30: I think until we get scenarios on the table and what we're actually going to be facing, there's, I mean, it's, we've had the same type of information for the past several sessions now and I think until something tangible and immediate is facing us, I think that's, that would warrant that. So at this point, we will close the budget study session. Moving on to 15.1, Board of Education Committee Reports, Announcements, Requests, Debrief, Discussion. None? Member Crocker? None. Rodriguez?

[9900] Ray Rodriguez: Something real quick. We voted to approve our new executive director of HR and normally we announce the person's name and everything. If we can do that, that would be, if that's appropriate to do that.

[9921] SPEAKER_30: Go for it, Ms. Batson.

[9922] Maria Huffer: Okay, the board voted to approve Dr. Oliver Wong-Ah Sun as the new HR Director.

[9931] Ray Rodriguez: Mrs. Condon is all excited. Was that it? No, the only thing I have is a few of us attended the Hispanic Community Affairs Council Scholarship Program. There were 60 scholarships given out and we have five Newark students and member Crocker gave a donation and so it was nice. It was a nice event and I was right here in Newark and a total of 60 scholarships is a lot for an organization. And then my last thing is I want to thank staff and it's going to be a challenge because we got so many things going on and I was talking to President Wynne about this. This is the end of the year and keeping us abreast of all the different, for each site and so we can do our best and it's exciting, the end of the year and it's, thank you for keeping us and the website, the district website. That was great, or it is great, and I'm sure it's going to get changed or improved. Okay, thank you. That's all I got. Thank you. Member Thomas.

[10007] Nancy Thomas: Well, I'll say what I was going to say a minute ago, and that's a suggestion that we look at Fremont's infographic as a way to have a more clear, it would certainly help my understanding of the LCAP, a more clear understanding of the LCAP and the company that does it. pulls most of the data right off the web and it's just, it seems to me that would be a real good investment and it would help me and the public understand how we're spending our LCAP money. That's my suggestion.

[10043] SPEAKER_30: Thank you. I have none. So we are hitting 12 minutes into the 10 o'clock deadline. So I would see if any of you would like to entertain a motion to extend the overall board meeting by X number of minutes not to exceed 10.30. 10.30? Yeah. Second. Second. So moved by Member Crocker not to exceed the overall meeting to 10.30. Second by Member Rodriguez. Please vote. Okay. Five ayes. Finally, 16.1 superintendents concluding comments, updates, et cetera.

[10083] SPEAKER_27: Just two items. I just want to draw your attention to the updated vision mission statement that reads Newark Unified School District formally used to read Newark Public Schools. So that's been updated thanks to our print shop. I think the colors look nice and we got it all in the same kind of size frame so that looks good. Thanks to our print shop and Patty for getting that done. And the second item that I'll pass around to you is your first glance at the flyer for the Superintendent Engagement Series, the final event. It's going around now. It will be Wednesday, May 31st, 2017, starting at 5.30, with a celebration and recognition and district goal and budget update for the community, and then end with a community barbecue, and you'll be hearing more about that. That's all I had.

[10136] SPEAKER_30: Not to be super nitpicky, but I'll be it. And this is super low on the radar. Yeah, but why is the font different on the text?

[10144] SPEAKER_27: I think because we had to fit it within the size of the frame that we had. We could get new frames and make the fonts accurate. But I think with the, do you know what was the change there, Patty?

[10154] SPEAKER_30: One's compressed and one's expanded. Yeah.

[10157] SPEAKER_27: We can look at it.

[10158] SPEAKER_30: Like I said, don't waste two brain cells on it. It's just an observation.

[10163] Ray Rodriguez: The vision is more important.

[10165] SPEAKER_19: The only thing I can tell you is that she was having a hard time. She did them internally. And I guess once you produce him in different types of laptops, it just changes the font. We actually went with, um, the left. I'm not sure how the right one was created.

[10179] SPEAKER_27: Okay. We'll look into it. Thank you. Thank you.

[10182] SPEAKER_30: All right. So this time we will, uh, reconvene to close session and we'll, we shall report out no later than 10 30. Thank you.

[10210] SPEAKER_32: you

No minutes available.