Study Session Meeting

No content available.

[15] Catheerine Ingham-Watters: Rodriguez.

[18] Elisa Martinez: OK. Item number two, approval of the agenda. Are there any modifications that are going to be required? OK. Having said that, can I get a motion and a second to approve the agenda as is?

[38] Phuong Nguyen: I move to approve the agenda as is.

[45] Elisa Martinez: member when moves member John seconds. Please vote.

[62] SPEAKER_18: Motion passes 3 ayes.

[70] Elisa Martinez: Moving to item 2.2 public comment on board study session Miss Parks.

[83] Cindy Parks: Good evening. The first thing I'd like to address is the speaker, speaker card protocol that's on this item. I'm not exactly sure why it's on here because this is an agendized item. But this item, this protocol says that each person may speak once on an item for a maximum of three minutes. Public comments cannot be acted upon by the board. I would request that you provide me with the documents that restrict the board from commenting on board agendized items, because government code 54954.2 says that no action or discussion shall be taken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda, meaning non-agenda items. but that doesn't restrict you from commenting on items that are on the agenda. But pertaining to the board study session, I hope that I could have your support in requesting the, which I have done several times now, is the ATIS expenses being corrected. The last time that we were all given information, the total amount from ATIS had come out of Measure G, and there were projects contained within the ATIS project that are not allowed to be funded through Measure G. And I'm still asking to see proof that that has been corrected, because right now you're standing at a half a million dollars coming out of Measure G, and not all of that should have come out of there. July of 2019 was the 36-month time period for your, to spend the 85% of your Measure G money. So you should technically be down to $2.7 million. So you haven't met the 85% expenditure as of 36 months from when you sold your last series. The elephant in the room is that the items that were on the October of 2018, yeah, the October 2018 list from that the board approved did not contain the science lab modification that was supposed to take place at the high school. That was from the very beginning, from the very first meetings that were supposed to happen. It fluctuated in money depending upon, I mean, once HVAC and roofing got kicked in, that kind of decreased. But then Russian money came in, so it's just kind of fluctuated. But that item has been nowhere on there, and that was supposed to be an item that was supposed to be up for consideration. So again, I hope that I can have your support in looking at the ADIS money. and the 85%, you haven't met that, and then, I'm sorry, I did have one other thing, is that there is, in Education Code 15100, there are limitations on what this money can be spent on, and it is not supposed to be used for current maintenance, operation, or repairs, and it is only supposed to be used for furniture, equipment, apparatuses that are of a permanent nature. So again, I wanted to just make sure that we understand the parameters of what this money can be spent on. Thank you very much.

[267] SPEAKER_18: Thank you. Ms. Rachel Bloom.

[277] Rachel Bloom: Hello, school board members and executive cabinet. My name is Rachel Bloom. I'm a science resource teacher at Graham and Schilling this year. And I wanted to say that I like study sessions because they keep you, the members of the board, and us community members and staff informed about what's really going on. My understanding is that this study session will focus on Measure G. In addition, my understanding is that school bond money is used or has to be used mostly for buildings and safety and modernization. and not for creating smaller class sizes or providing students with much needed mental health services. And so obviously safety is our number one priority. But it would also be great if the district could look for ways to increase funding for smaller class sizes and mental health services. So if we are to work towards the district's mission, inspire and educate all students to achieve their full potential and be responsible, respectful and productive citizens, then we must provide mental health services to help students become respectful. We must have small class sizes, small enough so that teachers truly will have the opportunity to educate students to help them reach their full potential. So thank you for discussing buildings. It's very important. And I hope that further discussions will include how to raise funds for much needed class size reductions and mental health services. Thank you.

[361] SPEAKER_18: Thank you.

[365] Elisa Martinez: Okay, and with that, we move to study session on facilities and measure G update.

[371] SPEAKER_27: Superintendent Salinas. Yes, good evening. Ms. Marie De La Cruz will be introducing our facilitators today, and staff is also here to answer questions.

[382] Marie dela Cruz: Good evening, President Martinez, board members. Tonight, we have Patty Polson and Steven Gault as our bond facilities consultant and oversight They will be going over some of the background and the history, updating some of the present projects that we've been working on, as well as what we may be needing in the future. So can I ask Patty?

[416] SPEAKER_28: Good evening. Yes, so I'm Patty Paulson. And I work in a division of California Financial Services called Key Analytics, which we really focus on the compliance side of things. and uploading the district's transactional data regarding Measure G. And I helped repair the bond oversight reports for the committee. I'm a licensed CPA. I worked in schools. I was a former school district auditor and bring a wide variety of information and background to our company and to the district.

[449] SPEAKER_15: Good evening, my name is Steve Gold. I'm with California Financial Services. I am a registered municipal financial advisor. I work with school districts throughout the state to plan for and execute bond programs of all different shapes and sizes. Bond programs that fund improvements to existing schools as well as build new schools and expand programs. What we're going to try to do this evening is to quickly move through a slide deck that we've put together that gives you some basic information in an attempt to answer some of the questions that came from the board to staff related to this topic. However, what we're also going to do is leave plenty of time for questions and answers. So if questions come to mind, if you could please just jot them down, and we'll kind of circle back at the very end. Again, by design, I'm going to try get through this part very quickly so we can have a dialogue. So the first thing we're going to do is talk a little bit about the history of the measure. In 2011, the school district conducted a review of the age and condition of their capital facilities. So in this review, they looked at each and every campus, looked at what the current status was, and then what the target, some of the critically needed projects would be to bring them up to safety standards, improve infrastructure, and those types of things. It's interesting to note that for your district, even in 2011, the average age of facilities within your district was almost 50 years old. So you have a lot of campuses that have critical needs simply not because the district hasn't been caring for them, but they've been around for a long time with weather and changes in technology and those types of things. Working with a team of experts subsequent to this review, the district identified that they would be able to go to the November 8, 2011 ballot and present the community with the opportunity to pass a $63 million measure. with a tax rate of approximately $39 per 100,000. Under Prop 39, because the estimated tax rate was under the $60 maximum threshold, the district did only require a 55% yes vote on the measure to get passage. The district did win a narrow victory with Measure G. If you see there on the right-hand side, the yeses were 55.9%. So 55 was your threshold, you got 55.9. What I've included on this slide is the ballot measure language. This is the language that a voter within your community in 2011 would have seen on the yes no box on their ballot. In addition to that, in your packets under tab one, we've included the full text of the measure. This includes not only this ballot language here, but also includes more expansive information on it, arguments for, arguments against, as well as a detailed project list. When school districts throughout the state go forward with a bond measure and under the provisions of Prop 39, which is what enables us to pass with just 55%, you're required to not only provide a descriptive language like this, you're also required to provide a project list that's in that tab one. So as we go forward question and answer, that's really your guiding post. Even if something is legally, legally permissible under the overall statute to be funded from a GEO bond. It can only be funded from your GEO bond if it falls into the criteria on that list. So on October 30, 2012, after the passage of the measure, the Board of Education hired Vanner Construction as the construction manager for the Measure G bond projects. As a construction manager, Vanner was tasked with assisting the district to prioritize the many needs of the district under the context of the bond measure, and then thoughtfully moved through the process of planning, execution, and closeout of each one of the projects. It's important to understand right off the bat, everyone within the planning process understood that those $63 million was a lot of money. It was nowhere near what the district would have needed to do all projects. So there was a fair amount of prioritization that had to take place. Right here, what you see on the screen in front of you is a pie chart that shows what we are identifying as kind of the initial priorities for Measure G. You can see here, the plan really emphasized roofing and HVAC improvements from the very beginning. Almost 75% of the projects, the money was allocated to these types of projects. When you think about it, this is very similar to what we see in a lot of districts that are doing their first bond. The idea is that if you don't fix the roof, the facilities will continue to deteriorate. On the HVAC side, not only it's kind of a two for one, you get the improvement of a better teaching environment by improving the HVAC systems. And then you also get the run on benefits of lower energy costs for the district's operational funds. Like any project, as we've moved through the Measure G program, there's been changes in priorities. There's been changes in budgets. But what you'll see in front of you here is this is your project priorities as of December 19. And though there has been a few changes, you can see, in general, the majority of Measure G still followed the basic project priorities identified initially, most of the money going to HVAC and roofing projects. You can see here, as we stand today, You can see the dark blue pulled out pie. The district does have about $7.8 million of unallocated money in the Measure G fund. So as you move forward to extinguish or complete the Measure G projects, that's the amount that you can apply forward to projects in the original project list. In addition to staying true to their initial prioritization of HVAC and roofing, the district's also done an exceptional job making sure that each and every student within the district is getting some benefit of the measure. Instead of taking all the measure and piling it into one school or a small group of schools, the district has successfully spent significant funds on each and every campus. Now some campuses have gotten more money than others because the needs were greater, but each and every campus has been touched to date by the Measure G program. So that's the history of the program to date. As we get into the question and answer, Patty has a tremendous amount of detail. As part of our services for the district under the key analytics program, we collect and index all of this expenditure and encumbrance information. So behind every number that we are showing you here in summary, we have detailed down to each and every transaction, every accrual of interest, every invoice that's paid, every contract that's entered into. So we can provide that to you as well if you have specific questions. So now as you look at expending the final portions of Measure G, we bring you forward to October 16th of 2018. At the October 16th meeting, the board at that time approved the list of project priorities for the expenditure of the balance of the remaining balance of the funds at that time. So on October 16th, you can see here in the first column of numbers that they identified project priorities that were largely in line with that original slide. We're still looking at the majority of the money being spent on HVAC, as well as other core priorities that we had when we started the Measure G program. In total, the district's board at that time identified $10.6 million worth of target projects to complete or project priorities to complete for Measure G. At the time, what was presented to the board was not a list of projects, per se. Again, they were project priorities. So I know that some years ago, people had a good laugh at the concept of the shovel-ready project. What the board approved on 2018 wasn't contracts to move forward with projects. What they approved, like they did all the way through the process, was, hey, here's a list of project priorities. We want you to spend it on these areas. And then gave staff the go ahead to go out and identify these projects, find ones that make sense, have good cost benefit, and those types of things. To date, the district has, since that time, the district has expended approximately $4.6 million worth of Measure G. And here are the things that they've expended them on. The first column is commitments, which is the 4.6. That means that the district is currently underway and has opened, at the very least, has opened purchase orders for these amounts. And the expended is actually what cash has been spending. You can see there the spending to date on the 2018 project priorities is pretty much in line. The district did end up spending slightly more on classroom technology than was initially targeted. But at the end of the day, it's fairly close. What I did want to highlight here is there is a second box on the bottom here. These are a list of priorities that changed even since 2018. Pop-up projects, expenditures that aren't really defined as projects, like ongoing management costs and those types of things. But this is so that you can tie out to exactly how much has been spent from the Measure G funds. So to date, if you look on the bottom right-hand corner, as we stand today, of the $10.674 million that was identified, there's about $8 million worth of expenditures from the 2018 list that haven't been done. Reminding you again to compare that $8 million to the approximately $7.8 million that we have in the bank. So we're very close. Really, the difference being just what we spent over on the technology side. about $200,000. So as we look forward, the district staff, as we look at closing out the balance of the Measure G proceeds, the district staff did work with site principals to take a look at those priorities that the board gave direction on in 2018. and identify what are their critical needs on a site-by-site basis that falls into those original, those 2018 priorities. In total, there was $5.9 million of projects, estimated $5.9 million of projects identified, leaving program contingency, if the board were to move forward with the balance of the projects that were identified by the principals, of $1.9 million. What I would stress to you is 1.9 million seems like a lot of money. It would be a ton of money for me. In a program like this, and especially given the number of sites that you'll be dealing with, I think that's a pretty good program contingency to go into it with. So I would encourage the board, if the determination at the end of the process is to move forward with these projects, to not commit to additional projects until these projects are done. just because you never know. What we say, we always tell people the older the site, the less useful budgets are. And given the fact that now, as we stand here today, you've got your average school's almost 60 years old, there's likely to be a lot of surprises anytime we touch the sites. And I think we've experienced that through the Measure G program. So that's the Measure G process. We do have a few slides on kind of like that's where we are today and then going forward. I want to remind the board that the board has taken certain steps to move forward with the facilities program. So the Measure G is the past and it's the current, but you've already started to look forward. So the board hired an architect to assist you with the preparation of the master plan. So, which included not only a detailed analysis of each of the sites, but also a pretty robust outreach to the different people, the stakeholders. I was surprised to see that 174 representatives, it was a huge stakeholder outreach. So you've been compiling that information. The draft number on those is that you'd be looking at somewhere between $58 million and $588 million worth of additional expenditures on the sites. that we're going to be able to provide. Just really quickly to remind you on the why they're such a a big. A swing here 58 million is the amount identified to the master plan or draft master plan for infrastructure and maintenance. So these are just what we need to do on the sites to get to make sure that we continue to provide a safe and healthy environment for what they call signature projects. These are projects that help the district augment or expand the educational opportunities provided to the students. And then finally, the 588 is the big number, the kind of the visioning number, the number that's way out there. But if money was no object, that's kind of the target that we'd use. In addition to that, the board has given staff The go-ahead for the steps to explore potential November 2020 measures, both on the parcel side as well as on the bond side. And in that process, on the bond side, not on the parcel tax, I know that there was a community member that asked a little bit about operational revenue, but just on the facility side, under the limitations of Prop 39 which is what allows us to do the 55 the district could generate between 100 and 200 million dollars worth of funding in a new measure Depending on the amount of taxes that the community would be willing to support One of the questions that One of the questions that came up from the board to staff is the asked to kind of get a readout of just current and facilities funding facility funds and balances so here on this slide we're kind of showing you that on measure G as we talked about before there's about 7.8 million dollars that is that is unencumbered or hasn't been targeted to priorities you do have a developer a balance in your developer fees you have the asset management funds in 40 that's the 10.9 million and then if you look if you're looking forward to planning over the next several years, you have $100 to $200 million potential future geo bonds. And then state funding, we're not sure what you have, but I'm sure that an analysis would show that you have some eligibility for state funding, either from the big pots of money, the modernization pot, general modernization, or also with facilities of your age, probably some of the smaller pots, seismic and those types of facility programs that are at the state. So one of the things that I think that the board, as we move to the question and answer part, the board may want to consider is, as we start to look and hone in, and we've been really focused on Measure G because that's what the program's been, does the planning dynamic need to include all of these types of things? Should we be kind of broadening that in our discussion? The other thing to think about is, If the district would like to move forward, if the board would like to move forward with the projects that were given to them through the principal survey, this is kind of the timeline that you'd have to keep to. So really, we're talking about deciding to move forward in a very short order in February, hiring or selecting the project manager. With projects of this type, somebody has to kind of be the person who makes sure they all get done. Generally speaking, the CBO, the superintendent, doesn't have the time or expertise to do this on top of that. Some districts utilize an internal staff person, an M&O, those types of things, some hire out for somebody to help them manage it. But that decision would have to be made in the March timeline, because that's the person that would assist the district in scoping and conducting the bids. early as April, the board would be considering actually moving forward on the projects and contracts. I think one of the questions the board had is how would that look if we said yes to projects? How would it progress through? This kind of gives you a general timeline of an idea. Depending on the complexity of the projects, you may get some projects one meeting and some projects in the other meeting. They may all come together. It just really depends on how it's managed. During project oversight in June and July, that's when the project would actually be done, hopefully with the idea that the projects would be completed prior to the students coming back on campus in August. And then the balance of the project would be closed out in September. So as we go into questions and answers, I did want to just take one moment to maybe mention just a little bit about the 85% test, just to make sure that we're all clear. The federal tax law requires that when we issue tax-exempt bonds, and your bonds are tax-exempt, most of them issued by school districts in the state are tax-exempt, that the public agency has the reasonable expectation of expending 85% of the bond proceeds in the first 36 months. I want to stress the term reasonable expectation. The federal tax law does not assume that you control all of the variables in spending the money. So the tax law does not hold you accountable to making sure that you have a shovel-ready project to expend all the money. They just want to make sure that when you move forward with the sale of the bonds, you've identified a number of projects and you feel that you'll likely complete them in that time frame. If you don't complete, if you don't spend 85% of the proceeds within the first 36 months, you are not subject to any real penalties related to it. You don't have to give the money back, you don't have to pay taxes on it, anything like that. What you do have to do is you have to limit the interest earned on the bond proceeds that are invested. They have to be no higher than the interest costs on the bonds that were issued for to generate the proceeds. So in certain environments back in the maybe the late 80s, there were instances where we would go out and issue tax-exempt bonds, put in the bank, and the actual money in the bank was making more money than the interest rate we were paying on the bonds. We're not in that world today. Your money is with the county treasurer. It's probably earning just maybe a whisper over 1%. And you're paying 3% or 4% on your bonds. So really no action is required by the board, except for to continue to prioritize and identify the projects that need to be completed.

[1651] Marie dela Cruz: You want to review the appendices?

[1654] SPEAKER_15: Sure. Thank you. So what's in your packet, we've already went through tab one is a full text. On tab two, what we did was this is the numbers that drove the comparison between the 2018 project priorities and the 2019 budgets. And it'll show you on a project by project basis, campus and project, and then the amount of the Vanner budget, which is the 15 and then the 19 budget and the differences. Tab three is a summary memo. which is the backup information on the range of improvements identified in the master plan draft. Tab 4 is the list of 2018 project priorities, estimated costs, and the actual expenses and encumbrances to date. Tab 5 is the principal survey of facilities. And then tab six is a brief summary analysis that drove the estimated $100 to $200 million worth of potential new bond authorization.

[1762] Marie dela Cruz: So at this time, we'd like to welcome the board to ask questions and have some dialogue surrounding anything that Mr. Gall has presented. And then also, we're hoping to kind of get an idea of what the board was thinking moving forward. If the projects that were listed in October 18, were still some of the projects that we want to continue with and make some budget adjustments so that we can allocate the rest of the $7.8 million? And or were there any other priorities that we need to make to adjust those priorities?

[1803] SPEAKER_27: And if I can add, I think our hope is that tonight you're either reaffirming what we currently have on the list or we're reprioritizing. with the ultimate goal of the business department bringing back an action item at the next board meeting that really affirms and we can vote on, but just to give us direction this evening as well.

[1824] SPEAKER_18: Thank you. Thank you. Member Zhang.

[1831] Bowen Zhang: Just a quick question regarding the page six of your presentation. I didn't quite get the remaining budget of $8 million, but we have 7.8 million remaining Measure G funds. What was the reason for that 200,000 discrepancies?

[1849] SPEAKER_15: So I think the question, just to restate it quickly, is on page 7, through the principal survey, there was identified $5.9 million worth of projects that they look on their campus and feel that are a priority that also fall within your the board's 2018 priority list. But we have $7.8 million of funds left. What's not in this $5.9 million is contingency for follow-on projects. So as an example, if potentially you have something in here for an asphalt repair, if that asphalt repair breaks a phone line or ruptures a sewer line, that's not in there.

[1896] Bowen Zhang: So at one point- No, I'm actually asking for Page 6.

[1899] SPEAKER_28: He's on page 6.

[1900] Bowen Zhang: Oh, I'm on page 7. So you look at the bottom right-hand corner? Yes. That $8 million remaining budget? Correct. I believe that $8 million is the one not spent, still, and not overlapped, right?

[1915] Elisa Martinez: Yeah, I think that, yeah. So what's the difference between the $8 million remaining of the, I think it's, of the items in the 10-16-2018. And the $7.8 million.

[1924] Bowen Zhang: And the current balance.

[1927] Elisa Martinez: Current balance, I guess, is the number we're trying to get, which is 7.8.

[1931] Marie dela Cruz: I think you mentioned earlier it had something to do with the technology projects that went over 200,000. So the question is, why does page 6 have 8 million, but yet we have 7.8 million is what we're saying. Correct. Right?

[1949] SPEAKER_15: Yeah. Yeah. So if you look at the top here, you can see that there has been some changes in the budgets. I did not review the priority projects in 2018, so I can't be 100% sure at that time. But it looks like what happened here is simply that the classroom technology number was originally targeted to be 1.6. The district has committed 1.937 million to technology projects. Now, the good news is, as an example, for fire safety, we're below there. So we're up, we're high, we're low, we're high, we're low, we're low. And then so we're slightly short of the total $8 million. But again, I want to stress to you that what happened in 2018, the board did not approve projects. Specific projects. The board said, we've got this amount of money left. I want you to focus on HVAC assessment and replacement. Let's put $6 million there. I want you to focus on classroom technology improvements. Let's put $1.6 million there. I want to focus on security. Let's put $1.2. Now staff, go out, work with the sites, identify those projects that are most important. Fit things into the categories. Subsequent to that, if you look, there was $700,000 in playground equipment. That wasn't in the original priorities as well. So there's been some changes here, kind of up and down scope, and priorities change over time in programs.

[2046] Elisa Martinez: I think that's, honestly, that's how I'm reading it, that in the original 2018, 10.6, of those at the time, $8 million worth of those items didn't get done. Now, that doesn't necessarily align to the current balance, because we would have spent it potentially on other items, right?

[2066] SPEAKER_15: Correct, yeah. So you spend some more money on certain items. You have additional interest earnings over that time that add to the amount. So it's constantly moving and changing. Again, if the left-hand side on the board approvals in 2018 was a list of specific projects with contracts and POs, then it would have tied out a little bit tighter. I see.

[2091] Bowen Zhang: One more question, maybe for the staff or for the consultant, whoever can So if you look at the bond language, the attachment bond language at A5, I believe, on page A5. And you look at the second to the last paragraph and maybe the sixth to the last line. So there's this one line in the bond language that proceeds of the bonds may be used to pay or reimburse the district for the cost of district staff. when performing work on or necessary and incidental to bond projects. So it seems that we have this, by reading this quote, that seems to me that any districts, full-time districts that are working on the bond project or specifically assigned to a bond project, his or her salary can be reimbursed with general fund by the measure G money. Is that correct? So for example, if we have a full-time employee who is assigned on a, special mission or special project working on the Measure G related project, his or her salary can be, should be reimbursed or can be reimbursed to the general fund by using the Measure G money, right?

[2168] Marie dela Cruz: Correct. Whether you have an in-house staff member or a consultant like Vanner, it could be paid and reimbursed by the bond.

[2177] Bowen Zhang: So then I guess my follow-up question is the bond has been out since 2012, right? So it's been seven plus years or eight years. Do we have any information about, in the past, whether we have any school district full-time employee, whether it's CSCA or whatever, NEWMA people that are assigned to work on measure G related project, and did we reimburse the salary, I mean, from the measure G to our general fund? If we did not, that means it certainly feels like if we did not do any of this, we might be, We might be thinking, in the best case, maybe one or two million.

[2216] Marie dela Cruz: So I can assure you that anything that could be paid out of the bond was paid out of the bond, including any staff or consulting. For example, overtime. We do currently have installation of the key access control system being performed by one or two of our own staff that's being paid out of overtime. As long as it's not within their regular time, the overtime could be paid out of the bond. So does that make sense? So yes, we have been using the bond and leveraging the bond, maximizing it to make sure that any staff or consultants are being reimbursed or paid out of the bond. And Patty and Steven have been monitoring that to make sure that we do provide

[2269] Bowen Zhang: But you mentioned only the overtime, not the regular time. Or did I mishear what you said?

[2279] Elisa Martinez: I don't know that overtime is the defining factor. I'm going to look to you. I think it's going to be what the activities are, right? So if the activities are specifically a support.

[2289] Marie dela Cruz: Patty, come up and explain that because we talked about this earlier.

[2293] SPEAKER_28: Yeah, yes. So there's kind of two things going on. When districts hire staff specifically to work on bond projects, those are allowable costs under the bond program. And we do have a .4 FTE, I believe is what it is, Marie, working that's being paid out of the bond because they're directly working on bond projects. In addition to that, for some of the, I think, maintenance staff that are doing the locks and things like that, they're not doing that during their normal work. They are doing that on overtime because they do have a full-time job. And so they're being paid to do their full-time job. But it is cheaper to use the in-house employees to be able to do the work versus hiring more expensive contractors to do it. So the district is making the wise decision on how best to use the limited dollars you have on making those choices on how you want to do the work.

[2347] Elisa Martinez: Right. So I know in the presentation you all recommend the hiring of a project manager. So in this case, the cost of that resource would be paid out of Correct, right.

[2361] SPEAKER_28: And that's how districts around the state, if they either choose internally to hire people specifically to work on bond programs, they are paid directly out of the bond. Or if they use outside construction management firms, like a Vanner type of firm, you can use bond funds for that specifically.

[2381] SPEAKER_18: OK. Do you have a question here?

[2385] Phuong Nguyen: Hi. Hi. So I know that there's a lot of community members that are concerned about the 8 is consulting company being paid out of the energy bond and is it possible for you both to clarify that for us and if we are in any. If we're restricted or not.

[2413] SPEAKER_15: So the L eligible car that the question is. specific to the ATIS contract and the scope of work that ATIS did related to community paid out of Measure G. I think that, so I'm going to be, I haven't reviewed the ATIS contract or wasn't, I wasn't involved in the process, so it kind of, that's a caveat. To the extent that what you're doing is you're planning forward for projects that are under kind of the scope of the Measure G, I think the answer would be yes. What the thing to understand about these programs and these bonds when you go to pass them, there are, you kind of have, when you work through these things, and you'll see that through the full text of the bond measures, you read through it, you really have kind of three levels of projects that end up on the project list. You have signature projects with the board at the time commits to the to the community to build a park or build this or build that and those end up at the top of the project list. Then you have critically needed kind of things that the board directed staff. We must do these things. We must improve drainage on this side of those types of things. Then the third layer are things that end up on the bond projects in a more kind of general basis. I think that my my My guess, or my educated guess on that is, that the ADIS contract can be paid out of it because what they're really looking at are those kind of level three projects. Projects that weren't identified by scope and name in the original Measure G, but projects that were identified by type within the Measure G process. Now that, again, I don't know that for certain because I wasn't involved in the ADIS, so are they planning to put an aquatic center in and there was no, it said don't build an aquatic center, I don't know. But that would be an example of maybe where you would have to take a portion out of a different fund.

[2529] Phuong Nguyen: OK. Thank you.

[2534] Elisa Martinez: Thank you for clarifying a few of those questions. Those have been kind of hanging over our heads for a while, to be honest. So regarding the 85% spend, and then, of course, the ATIS spend as well. I think we do have a bit more homework to do on that one, just to clarify. The other one, as I, as staff had, you know, re-shared the bond language, and the community members spoke earlier about it, one of the things that was very specific and repeated quite a bit was around science labs. Some very specific use of that money in the bond language, and maybe it was under a category, but we've never really spoken to that level of detail. So, I think that was really helpful, I think, just for us to review the language. And as I'm on A5 as well, I have, I was also surprised at the language and maybe I'd read it way before and it was just a lot, but it does speak around what I would call consumables. Things like LCD projectors, computers, there are quite a bit in the context of upgrading our technology platform. And I know that, I know as last year, there were some folks that had been involved or very familiar that were really challenging our use of those funds for, again, things that are not permanent, what I would consider true capital. But the language is clear, right, that we could use that money for those type of items.

[2627] SPEAKER_15: Yes, so the parameters for the utilization of bond proceeds for things that have I would just say have a useful life less than 30 years. So when we're making a building, we're building a building, we're hoping that it's going to be there for 30 years, at least, or more. Here's the parameters. The statute that enables you to move forward with a bond measure of this type does allow for the expenditure of proceeds on these types of capital. They are capital investments. So technology, backbone infrastructure, as well as one-to-one devices is an example. Here is the limitation. As you go forward and you issue the debt, the portion of your bond program that you spend on these amounts cannot have the useful life of the thing that you're buying with it has to align with how long the bonds are being issued for. So when we issue a bond, the final maturity is 25 years from now. It's really not, unlike our mortgages, where we go out and get a 30-year mortgage, the mortgage is 30 years. When we issue bonds, we issue a 30-year bond. What we're really issuing is we're issuing some 30-year bonds, some 29-year bonds, some 28-year bonds, so forth and so forth, all the way back to some of your bonds that you issue are one-year bonds, maybe two-year bonds. The limitation that the law puts on you says if you're going to spend money on chairs and tables, you have to estimate their useful life and make sure that you're not spending money that you financed for 30 years on something that has a useful life of 10 years. So in general, for like a piece of equipment, depending on the bond counsel, they'll peg the useful life on like say a laptop between 5 and 10 years, depending on the counsel from here to here. So you would have to make sure as an example if you want to spend a million dollars on laptops. you'd have to make sure that you issued enough bonds if it was five years in the first seven and a half years, so one and a half times the useful life of that. So you'd look at how many bonds did you issue in the first seven and a half years. That would be your cap on the technology component. Throughout the state, you'll see over the last 10 years, there's been a big move because of the need to be transparent with the community there's been some people who, some districts have just gone on just for what they call tech bonds. And what they do is they get an authorization just like you and they go out but they only issue five-year bonds. So they go out and just issue bonds that mature in five years, they spend on technology and then because they're aligning that useful life to the components. So it would be inaccurate to say that there's a broad exclusion on the use of proceeds for that either in a grander sense, legally, the statute, nor in your bond measure itself. It really is up to the prioritization of the board and staff at the time, as long as you can make sure that you're not spending more than you've generated in those early years. To give you an idea, we could do the analysis, but probably 10% to 15% of your bond proceeds live in those first couple of years. So if you look at it at a $63 million bond authorization, if you said, I spent $7.5 million on this stuff, you're probably pretty clear on it. I mean, it would be out of the ordinary to have exceeded that if you were in that $10 million range of total expenditures.

[2843] Elisa Martinez: Thank you. That was very helpful.

[2844] Terrence Grindall: You're welcome.

[2856] Elisa Martinez: OK. I actually was asking the rest of the board members if there's any additional questions just on what you've presented. I think I do want us to have a little bit more conversation around the guidance that you're seeking from us. I have something to say about it. You know, coming back to your point about the previous board and even in just the original language, they are categories of spend, right? But here we are. You know, many moons past this approval and we still have $7.8 million that we haven't used. Well, 7.8 minus the contingency amount, right? So let's just say the 5.9 or 5.8 million that we really have to spend, right? With quite a bit of need. you know, that we hear every, you know, HVAC or the leaks that haven't been fixed or everything, right? So I think about personally, especially as I reread the bond language, it really was around improving the learning environment. And no one knows that better than those that are leading our school sites, right? So I think it's been a couple of years since this came before the board, but it was still in broad sweeps, I think. Personally, and again, I'd like to hear from the rest of the board, but is, I would like staff to work with each site leadership to present tactical, here are the things that I would like at I don't think of my kids' schools, but at intermediate or at junior high or at all of the schools, right? I think that does need to come back, but at a tactical level, right? It's not, you know, because if we bring it back at HVAC, what does that really mean? How do we go put some action on it? So I think it's really important that we, you know, take that input by sight and let's start to prioritize that. That would be kind of my thought.

[3001] Phuong Nguyen: I would agree with that. I think that we have to actually ask each of the sites, you know, what is deteriorating, what needs to be replaced, and then have that prioritization so that we can make a decision on moving forward with projects to spend the rest of the money. I think that it's been, you know, it needs to be reviewed for sure.

[3033] Bowen Zhang: Just like when I sent an email requesting this study session, what I want the board to achieve is, remember I set the list of priority, the overall vision and the strategy of how we spend the rest of the $7.8 million.

[3052] Elisa Martinez: If you're okay then, Member Zhang, I think that's the direction is please bring us back that prioritized, you know, here's how we believe Again, not we believe, but rather because of the input of each of the sites. And we have that, right? We have this wish list. You know, I don't know the genesis. Well, I think you're familiar, and you could certainly, Ms.dela Cruz, tell us a little bit about the genesis of that wish list. Because it, the wish list sounds, you know, oh, I wish we had it. But, so what is the guideline that we gave? when we asked for that wish list, what was the question that we asked so that we know what these site leaders are responding to?

[3095] Marie dela Cruz: The survey was really about their top five. So it wasn't a wish list per se. It was really about what are your top five facilities needs at this moment. And that the result of the survey is what's included in this packet. So we can revisit that. and kind of see where they're at today, if those still apply, and then maybe summarize it and try to come up with a list of priorities that could be part of the 7.8 million.

[3129] Elisa Martinez: Yeah. And if I may, if I could ask, and I imagine all of our leaders have the bond language, but I think it would be great if they bumped up that list to what the original intent of the bond was. just to, again, kind of keep ourselves honest that we are trying to stay in the spirit of the bond.

[3148] Marie dela Cruz: Yeah, and as Stephen mentioned earlier, we do have other funds as well. So if there are priorities that are identified that may not be in the bond, but may be able to come out of another source, then we will also entertain that. Because I think that it's more than just the bond at this point. There are other needs at the schools that maybe, again, may not fall under the bond, but I think still need to be addressed as a priority. I agree.

[3183] Elisa Martinez: Sorry if I'm monopolizing all the questions. Do we have a projected cost for a project manager?

[3193] Marie dela Cruz: Steven, Patty, do you have any idea? I know that... For an in-house, let's say, if you were to do an in-house, it's going to be about $150. Yeah, you're probably good.

[3210] SPEAKER_28: I mean, when you use a Vanner type, they're usually much more expensive. And over the years that you did have Vanner, you paid quite a bit. And so going in-house makes a lot of sense. I have districts. I was just at Campbell Union High School District yesterday. And they have taken it all in-house. And they have to have a specific team that is working specifically on just their bond projects. And it's a very aggressive program. But I think the number Marie's looking at is probably a pretty good number for that level of expertise.

[3244] Marie dela Cruz: OK. Thank you. So I would venture to say about maybe $150,000, $200,000. But because right now we're really dealing with the balance of Measure D, $7.8 million, And it's got an end date. The advantage of maybe going to an outside firm, knowing that it's specifically to deal with a bond and there's an end date, then maybe that's more of the way to go. Because if you do in-house, I guess you could also make it temporary. But at the same time, when you have a firm, they have a team of people.

[3287] SPEAKER_15: I think I'll give you my two cents on it too. It's an interesting question because I think the cost that Marie outlined to bring somebody in house versus maybe somebody who would do it from outside who potentially might add 10, 15 percent to the overall cost might be kind of the sort of maybe the cost structure you're looking at. But overall, really, the question is, and I think this is, again, what Marie's intimating is, if we're looking at the scope of the district's facilities improvement program being the closeout of Measure G and the expenditure of the balances that we've shown here today, from a big picture standpoint, hiring somebody full time as a district employee may not, even if it was more cost effective, might not be the right direction to go. You've got somebody then Either you're hiring somebody, you're telling them you're only going to be here for a year, which could affect the quality of person you're able to get, somebody who's willing to take just a one year job. Or somebody who you end up being challenged with a reassignment later, like how do I find a job for this person now that we've expended the funds. In contrast, if the determination of the board is that this isn't the last part of our program, that we're extending the program through other means, then it's then bringing somebody in-house. We've seen, if you get the right person, it'd be very effective. The person's here all the time. They're a part of the district's team in a real way. They're not focused on other priorities and those types of things. But again, I think the question is, are we just closing these projects out? which then kind of lends itself to using somebody outside or are we is this going to be a continuum which then lends itself to doing a determination of finding the right person to be part of your team.

[3405] Phuong Nguyen: Thank you.

[3414] Elisa Martinez: I think that's it for questions. Thank you very much for coming here and answering the questions. And staff, thank you for preparing all this for us.

[3423] Phuong Nguyen: Thank you.

[3423] Jodi Croce: Thank you.

[3435] Elisa Martinez: OK, so before we move to closed session, we have public comment on closed session items. And our first speaker is Ms. Park.

[3469] Cindy Parks: I just wanted to quickly address, it seems like when you come out of closed session, and it's nice that your attorney is sitting here. When you come out of closed session, a lot of times you'll say that no action was taken. And I just wanted to read you government code 54952.6 and your barred bylaw 9323.2. So an action by the board means a collective decision by a majority of the board members. So again, a collective decision. Number two, a collective commitment or promise by a majority of the board members to make a positive or negative decision. Or number three, the vote by a majority of the board members when sitting as a board upon motion, proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance. So I just kind of wanted to bring that to your attention because sometimes it seems that when you come out, there's no action, no action, no action. But it does sometimes seem as if there has been a collective agreement to move forward with something. So I just wanted to remind you of what it means for the action. Thank you.

[3540] SPEAKER_18: Thank you. Ms. Rachel Bloom.

[3552] Rachel Bloom: So hello again, Rachel Bloom, Graham and Schilling. So I'm here to comment on agenda item 4.1, public employee discipline, dismissal, and release. And so at the last board meeting, I spoke about the qualities we needed our district's most public employee, our superintendent, to have. And it's clear now that the board values honesty, integrity, kindness, competence. Clearly, you're looking for a superintendent that is compassionate, authentic, principled, forthright, qualified for the position. And at the end of, so to that end, right, the board a few months ago was smart enough to rid themselves and our district of the toxicity that we had at the highest level of the district. But unfortunately, that toxic person brought in district level and site level administrators that shared his values, not your values or our values, the community's values. There are a handful of administrators, a handful of people at the administrative level positions, site level, and at the district level that were filled by yes men. People hired to do his bidding. People that shared his values, insincerity, ineptitude, callousness, meanness, inauthenticity. And so I hope that there will be a discussion during this closed session between the board and Ms. Salinas. I want to be clear. I'm talking about just a small number of integrity and competence can be reflected by all administrators at the district at all levels. And so hopefully that conversation will happen and action will be taken soon. Thank you. And also during closed session, I'll be going to Wendy's and Panda Express. So if you guys wanted me to pick you up anything, Letty, I'm looking at you. I'd be glad to grab you something if you want.

[3693] Elisa Martinez: OK. Much appreciated.

[3695] SPEAKER_18: Thank you. Mr. Whitaker.

[3706] SPEAKER_37: you. Thank you. Good evening and thank you for give me the opportunity to speak in front of the board today. My name is Nate Whitaker I teach leadership I teach advanced 8th grade l a and also co teach 7th grade l a with the resource specialist is actually with me tonight. Newer students deserve the best and I will be focusing on actually affect this here at the junior high school. First, let's talk about class size. I'd like to focus on SPED particularly. Of all the departments, SPED is the one department that has made a positive impact on state testing scores at our site in the last couple of years. Unfortunately, the SPED department has been overlooked more than any other department A contract teacher was hired at the beginning of the year to teach a special day class. The teacher was originally passed over by the hiring manager because the teacher seemed unqualified. This same contract teacher was removed after the first quarter, but not without causing damage and chaos among the students he was supposed to be teaching, and not without using up the entire department's allotted number of copies. The remaining SDC teacher was required to absorb all the let go teachers students, doubling her class to 26, which is twice as many students as these classes have taken on before and twice as much as what most districts around Newark Unified allow. All because we can't entice legitimate teachers to work here, so we have to hire second rate contract teachers. NGHS had a long-term sub at the beginning of the year to teach the BLAST program. The BLAST program is a therapeutic special day class for students with disabilities categorized as emotionally disturbed. This program requires a specialist due to the fragile emotional nature of the students that attend this class. The resource teachers have been asked to take more than the mandated maximum caseload set up by a California Ed Code. When asked why the resource teachers were required to do something that was illegal, the previous Fed Director attempted to solve the problem by having a resource teacher at a different school site who does not see these students or serve them take on extra cases. This goes against Ed Code. I don't believe this problem has been solved yet. The resource teachers at NGHS are still being told to do jobs and perform tasks that a competent SPED director and program specialist would be required to do. These extra duties are on top of servicing the students on their caseload. Now let's talk about pay. It is very expensive to live in the Bay Area. Over the last three years, NGHS has consistently experienced a mass exodus of well-trained, experienced teachers annually in every department. Even though the school district has received COLA funds from the state, the teachers have not received the cost of living adjustment in years. We lose money every year. This year, the district offered a one-time 0.05% bonus for just this year. Nothing was offered for the following years of the three-year contract currently being negotiated. Being one of the lowest paying school districts in Alameda County, it's hard to attract and retain talented teachers when the surrounding districts pay significantly more. Finally, let's talk about Workday. The elementary schools are trying to reclaim their Friday collaboration days. NJHS benefits from students being prepared with grade-level skills before transferring on to junior high school. Without collaboration, the students' education suffers, and Newark students deserve the best.

[3911] Elisa Martinez: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much for your comments. And with that, we recess to closed session.

No minutes available.