2025-11-10 Board of Education’s Facilities Improvement and Oversight Committee

001So, the public meeting of the board of educ Oh, I was like, what is that noise? It's my own voice. [laughter] Um, this public meeting of the board of education's facilities improvement and oversight committee uh committee for November 10th, 2025 is called to order. Um, good afternoon and welcome. Thanks for being here. And before we get started, I do just want to share a preview of what we'll be talking about today. We will have a public comment. We'll have a seismic formula update. We'll have an update on the $20 million that was allocated for HVAC improvements through um actually 10 of that is for PAF, which is what we'll be covering today. Um an ongoing facilities maintenance staff analysis that I'm looking forward to sharing. an update on the Grample field lighting installation, an update

002on the um due diligence for the Center for Black Student Excellence, and then we'll have an opportunity for future agenda topics and any next steps that um we need to wrap up at the end of this meeting. So, um why don't we go ahead and introduce ourselves up here? Um want to start with John. >> Yeah. Hi, John Franco, senior chief of operations. Michelle Chase Miller, uh, Virginia Lefort, director for zone 5, Michelle Depass, board vice chair, Patty Sullivan, board director, >> Liz Large, contracted senior legal adviser, >> Sharon Ton, chief legal officer. >> Great. Um, so first we're going to have public comment and we have a pretty >> May I say something? I wanted to You read off the list of um items. I'm going to ask that we remove the CBSC uh

003for a couple of reasons. One, it was just noticed at 12:50 today. Um, which is in violation of our public meeting notice which requires 24 hours or best practices 48. Um, unless it's an emergency, which I don't think this is. Um, we also, this is of great interest to our entire board. There's four of us here. There's seven people on the board. And finally, uh, we have a letter which I I've um shared out in public before. It's it's a public document dated May 25. It's signed by 35 [clears throat] community- based organizations, none of whom are here tonight. I feel like um this is of great importance to the community that has advocated really strongly for this. Some of the organizations are on the um Center for Black Excellence Steering Committee. They have no

004idea this is happening. They have not received alerts. Um they have no way to organize within uh three and a half hours to come here. And I think that they need to be here. And the fact that they're not here is um is a really bad look for us. These are the these are the the organizations, you know, many of them are not in the room to advocate and to listen at the same time as everybody else does. >> Um >> and so I'm just as a committee member asking that we do put this off for the Tuesday board meeting on the 18th when all of us can be here. We can invite community members to advocate for um a building that has great importance to this community. >> It I definitely understand the importance.

005Absolutely. Which is why it was a yes vote on the purchase. I know that we agreed in our >> we haven't voted to purchase >> um whatever you want to call what we did on September 9th. So to make an offer um so we agreed in that board meeting to present our due diligence which is all we're doing today. It's my understanding that our deliberation, the final due diligence, anything that's left over will be discussed on November 18th and that's when we'll actually deliberate. So today is just a sharing of the due diligence that we have and it's posted already. So I don't see why we wouldn't let staff discuss. So >> we we also are asking staff to present something twice, but I I really don't feel like um the eight days that we're

006talking about. We're not going to find more. I'd rather have a complete report in front of the entire board. The most of the board is interested in hearing this information. We will be taking a vote on it hopefully at some point. And most importantly, the community that is advocating for this and has been working on it for 5 years is not in the room. >> I think we're just presenting due diligence. So they're not there's no discussion that anyone would be missing. >> I still feel like they need to be in the room. So that's just me. I'm just one board member. >> I feel like it's just stating my view. >> I I hear you. The full board, there was a full board direction at the September 9th meeting and I feel obligated to

007follow that and not change it. Um because the rest of the board is not here. So that was the directive and it's what we discussed. I've talked to Dr. Armstrong as recently as yesterday about this. So there was no issue. Um so I'm just ready to move forward. >> Well, and the other thing is that you know my hope is that we work collaboratively on this committee and on all of our committees. And that means that topics that are broached need to be discussed with the whole committee. It needs to be something of importance. Um, I I feel like I've I would turn a a mirror on myself and say I haven't added things to the um like proactively added to the agenda and that's on me. Um I want to see this agenda. I

008I'm not here for nothing. I want to see things on the agenda that I want to hear about. >> I haven't been good at that. I'm going to be better. >> I know that we have added on a time to talk about um future agenda topics. I think that's a great step, but we need we are a team. We're we we need to be a team together. And I'm I'm hoping to be a team. I'm hoping to work collaboratively on this um committee and all of our committees. And I I feel like it's a great disservice to the community that has had so much stolen from them in in this neighborhood and in this community in Albina. So much has been stolen. The city just a couple of months ago paid out $ 8.5 million

009to homeowners who had had their their homes taken through eminent domain just eight just two months ago. So, I know that this is really important. It's important to me as a neighbor and a resident in this community. It's important to the black community that's not here. Um it's a a grave disservice to uh discuss this behind people that have been advocating it for five years. I'm following. >> It's a It's a really bad look. >> We're following the board directive from September 9th. I don't have any authority to change that nor >> Well, as a chair, you do have a cho You have a choice on what goes on the agenda and it's a collaborative effort about what goes on the agenda. >> Right. >> I'm asking that we hold it off until the 18th,

010which is eight days from today. So we all get the information at the same time and we have the a the time to bring the community in to celebrate, you know, what we know or at least hear what this due diligence is. It's eight days. >> Um it's already online, so I'm not inclined to postpone it. >> As as a chair, you have a choice. Um you made the choice. The board made the choice on September 9th. the full board made the choice to run this through facilities at this meeting. I'm following the board directive. I'm following the conversations I've had with Dr. Armstrong, like I said, as most recently as yesterday and Friday and the week prior. So, we I' it's my understanding >> it's a very bad look for us not to have

011anybody from the community that signed this letter in May of 25 to not be here to advocate one way or the other. We have a >> nor do we have any public testimony. We have one I think here. We have one testimony. We have an entire group of uh black community members that are very interested in the topic. >> They're interested in the due diligence. Absolutely. >> Parking all of the things. And you do have a choice about uh putting this on the agenda or or leaving it. And we did say that we would provide an update. And next week is an update in November. >> It's not at this committee. It's at a broader committee. Um, it's really the majority of our board wants to be involved, wants to be updated >> and there

012the majority of us, >> right? We're we're getting updated. So, >> I'm [clears throat] ready to move on. So, um, public comment. So, um, let's see. Uh, let's see. So, when you come up here, so we're going to we're obviously have a packed agenda today. Um, we have two minutes per person. Um, I love public comment, but I'm going to hold you to it because we do have a lot to get through here today. So, I'm hopeful that I'm not in a situation where I have to interrupt somebody, but just know that it's not personal if I do. Uh, we just want to make sure that everybody has a chance to talk. Um, so when you come up, please make sure you begin your comments um, and that you clearly state your name and spell

013your last name. You'll have two minutes to speak, and we ask that once you hear the sound of the alarm go off to please wrap up your comments. Okay, we have two people virtual who'll be joining us. Uh Colin Harris and Daniel Leafaro. >> Colin, do you want to start? >> Sure. Sure. Um my name is Colin Harris. Uh last name H A R R I S. I'm a um longtime Southwest uh Portland resident born and raised and a PPS parent with um a second grader currently in the Capitol Hill um Jackson Middle School and IDB Wells cluster and a three-year-old who will follow his brother into kindergarten in about a year and a half. Uh as a lifelong Portland resident, I've always been aware um and I'm talking about Seismic today in case you

014guys I don't know if the subject was shared. I've always been aware of a large earthquake and the risk that it poses to the city and its infra infrastructure growing up here. Um particularly in the western hills, but that awareness has taken on a whole new um meaning since becoming a parent myself. The thought of my kids spending most of their days in schools that experts have deemed unsafe, even in a moderate earthquake, is deeply concerning to myself and I'm sure many other parents. It's something that's constantly on my mind to the point that my family and I have considered moving to other neighboring districts um or enrolling in private school. I was shocked after reading the homes report and just seeing the scope of the con uh condition assessments many of our schools are

015in. Uh and what stood out to me most is that my kids may end up spending the next decade in facilities considered among the most vulnerable in the district. Jackson Middle School in particular stood out as one of the highest risk schools. Yet, it appears there's not a plan in place to address its severe safety issues despite its alarming score. Uh it's not only my children are at risk, obviously, but those of uh other teachers and staff as well. I understand that resources and time um and money are all limited. um and that there's always competing priorities for both. But as a parent, I can say with confidence nothing matters more than having safe, structurally sound schools for our kids right now, even if it means smaller or delayed projects in other areas. I want

016to thank the board and the committee for the work done so far and the progress made. But I also want to urge the board and Colin, >> we've got to go ahead. >> Sorry, we've got to move on. Thank you so much for your comment. I really appreciate it. Um, next we've got, is it Daniel Leafro? >> My name is Daniel Leaf Faro, LF AR O. Resident in Southwest Portland, proud parent of a kindergartner at Ricky Elementary. Um, and I have a four-year-old who will be joining her sister in a couple years at Ricky as well. Um, first I want to thank the board and all the PPS staff members in the larger community for the efforts to date to raise the awareness and importance of addressing seismic risk and safety at our schools. Um,

017as Colin stated, you know, safety is paramount. Um, uh, students, staff, and community has to feel comfortable, uh, working, going to school and and living, um, within the seismic risk area. Um and I'm long have worked in emergency management and hazard mitigation and risk reduction and uh professionally know the the challenges we face both with funding to address risk um and the the politics of addressing risk um and to some extent the bureaucratic uh challenges we have to address risk especially when it comes to um facility improvements and making decisions about where to spend um limited resources to address risk. Um having said that I want to emphasize a few things. A the importance of um the urgency of the situation we have right we all know it's not if um if we face an

018earthquake but when we face an earthquake and we know what will happen to many of the schools that are unreinforced masonry across uh across the region. um they'll crumble, the roofs will collapse, and students and staff alike will be trapped um and and and and injured or killed as a result of the earthquake and a result of the the current built environment which we have. Um that's an urgent risk, an urgent thing that needs to be addressed. Portlanders chose to to put money towards that with the recent bond measure and in the past. And um I urge the board and the district to continue to move with due haste to identify uh a process that can be clearly communicated to the community um as to how those funds will be um be dispersed uh and

019how schools um the risk will be rated. I know there's been studies and reports that have been shared. Um, I've looked at the agenda. Um, notably again, Ricky Elementary parent. I see Ricky is not on the list that was on the slide. Um, I don't know if that was an oversight. >> Daniel, we just hit our two minutes. >> So, we have or two minutes or two minutes. Yeah. Sorry. That goes by quick. Thank you for the hard work. >> No, thank you so much. We appreciate the comment. Next, I've got Silvin Cambier. >> Uh, so my name is Silvin Cambier. C A M B I E R. Uh I'm a parent. I've got two kids at Rose City Park Elementary, a first grader and a fourth grader. Um it's been great to see progress

020and steps forward since the the last facilities meeting. Um I'm excited to see that we're going to have improvements to Rose City Park School. That's fantastic. And since then, I've had the great pleasure of being um introduced to members of our neighborhood and other parents at the school who are forming um an alliance together. We've got a postcard that we're sending out to the whole neighborhood. We've got a website that we're making. We've had great conversations with the principal about what's already in place for seismic safety. And for us, it's a whole, you know, it's a whole cohesive picture about how our neighborhood stays safe. we know how valuable this school is to the whole community. Um, and we want to keep we want to keep working on this together with the district. Um, and

021it's been fantastic to connect with not just members of the school uh but members of the emergency response uh team for our neighborhood um and learning more about what the district already has in place. And so I think in order for us to provide the most help, having effective communication with the district about what we can do to not be cumbersome in the process, but to actually really facilitate um and add, you know, I think the term that came up at the end of the last meeting was community lift and I got real excited about that idea. So, we're hoping that we can generate some momentum behind the community lift efforts for the school and we realize that the resources are limited, right? And so, we want to stretch that as far as we can

022stretch it. Um, and frankly, I don't know exactly how we're going to succeed at that, but I think the more more we communicate effectively with the district about what's needed and what's valuable and what we can do as a community and a neighborhood to bring that forward, we're excited to do it. Um, my fourth grader is going to be at Roseway Heights next uh in a couple years, so that'll be next on my list. Thank you very much. [laughter] >> Thank you so much. Um, Russell Ewing, we have Russell. All right, I guess not. Um, Peread. >> Hi everyone. Um uh I'm Perilstead. I am a parent of a third grader and a sixth grader at Beverly Clearary School. Um I'm here actually not in my role as parent at Beverly Clearary, but as a

023member of the Safe Structures PPS Coalition. Um I'll try to be quick and brief. Um the revised formula that was put forward in the materials today we do think is a significant um step forward towards implementing the mandate in resolution 7109 and in turn the will of the voters who passed the 2025 school modernization bond. Um [snorts] immense thanks to the PPS management and staff who've been and the board who have been working on this for many months um particularly in light of how many other unprecedented challenges you all are having to manage right now. Um while we do truly appreciate the progress, we do also have a number of questions um that we think still need to be answered before moving forward. Um I won't go through all of them, but just some of

024the big categories. Um big picture, we really think that the PPS management needs to show its work. Um so be very clear and show the calculations of how the formula as applied leads to the list of schools that were in the deck. I think that's particularly important to be transparent about the schools that aren't there that are among the riskiest including Jackson, Lee, Buckman, Ricky, and Roseway Heights in particular, but several others. Um uh we also think it is um important that PPS be very clear about how the required equity focus is incorporated into this process. It wasn't transparent. it wasn't visible to me looking at the materials in the deck, but that is required under resolution 7109. Um, and so we really want to hear more about how that's being incorporated, whether it's part

025of the formula and we just don't see it or separate from the formula and there'll be more discussion about that, but things like title one and enrollment demographics and geographic spread and proximity to other schools that might be part of the right sizing or consolidation process. Um, we do also want to know what other factors are being considered separate from the formula. Um, the formula doesn't appear to explain why that list is the way it is. So, are they taking into consideration other factors? Um, we look forward to hearing more from the um the staff on that and their presentation. Thank you. >> Thanks, P. Okay. Uh, Terrell Garrett. >> [clears throat] >> Terrell Garrett, G- AR T. Portland public schools have not been immune to the greenwashing of construction recycling rates in Portland that

026are now a focus of national attention. Based upon lead audits, the mixed construction waste recycling rates submitted for IDB Wells have been disallowed and soon those for Lincoln will be rejected. Benson will suffer the same fate. The holler on all the projects core has admitted that their submittals are non-compliant and the Multma County auditor has found their claims of 90% recovery were correctly 16%. Meaning that 82% of your material claimed as recycled actually was sent to the landfill. Unless addressed, this problem will continue. What has happened is in direct opposition to the climate crisis response policy and the school policy of teaching the students from day one about environmental stewardship. Since not all paths to achieve lead to achieve lead gold include construction waste recycling. We can only fix this problem by placing construction recycling

027requirements in the contracts. Surprisingly, this can be done without additional project cost and with little oversight. First is the requirement of an achievable construction recovery rate that disallows gaming of the numbers. Second, the recovery numbers submitted must be verified and certified by a neutral third party. Finally, there must be a significant penalty for non-compliance. It is just that simple. Although the result of months of discussions with industry leaders nationwide about what works and what does not, your auditor, Janice Hansen, has received a complete written explanation of this solution, and I ask that you work with her to develop contract language incorporating these requirements for all your construction work. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Okay. Um, Ariel Uh so good afternoon. I'm Ariel Toer Lautri. So to ozer, I'll leave it at that. Uh

028parent of first grader at Cesar Chavez K through8. Uh I'm here and recently became involved with the safer structures work because I work in international disaster risk reduction and it the irony is not lost on me that uh I on a daily basis try to help communities prepare for disasters that might strike their communities and then I send my own child to a school that will likely collapse uh when the next big earthquake hits. Um, I could see in the from the change in the formula from the previous meeting to this one that you all are really listening to, you know, the public comment and I thank you for that. You're putting risk front and center. But at the same time, risk is not just a building score. It's how many kids are in each

029building. It's how ready they're to act and it's what resources their community have to h communities have to respond. with limited dollars, which is always a reality. Unfortunately, risk reduction should really mean protecting the most students with the resources that we have. Uh I'm speaking because I feel a responsibility to represent families at Chavez and other underresourced schools who aren't here because of time, because of language, child care, or unfortunately right now just fear of leaving their h homes. Um I don't envy the choices that you have in front of you, but I am asking for transparency. Uh please clearly explain why some schools are moving forward and others are going to have to wait perhaps indefinitely. Clearly indicate where every um campus fits on the pipeline. Um because all students at PPS, not just

030those with the loudest advocates, really deserve to be in buildings that will withstand the earthquake we all know is coming. Uh so I urge you to please adopt consistent a consistent district-wide plan that goes beyond this bond and makes it clear what's coming forward and then to restore also the 15% weight for additional resources for historically underscorerved schools uh on the PPS's targeted and comprehensive school improvement list so that it aligns with PPS's equity policy. Thanks. >> Thank you Aaron Frasier. Good afternoon everybody. My name is Aaron Frasier and I'm the executive director of the Center for Black Excellence. Thanks for having me. Uh my comments today will be brief um largely because I didn't have very much time to prepare. Uh but luckily the things that I'm going to say to you all today

031aren't new. Even though some of the information that this board has before it and that will be discussed in today's meeting is I'm incredibly excited that PPS has completed due dils due diligence report on one north and that the district is now well positioned to move forward on closing on the CBSC. As director deass noted at the outset, despite what the room looks like today, given the short notice of this agenda item, there are swaths of people who have been invested who have invested time and energy and heart over the last 5 years to get us to this moment. And indeed, folks who have invested time over many, many decades to get us to a place where we might even be considering such a purchase. At the end of the day, we want for black

032children what the district says it wants for all children. But we also know that black children face different risks in this district. They risk being undereducated even at a time when the school district shows outsized performance as it relates to white students recovery post pandemic and underperform similarlysized districts and other metro region districts as it relates to black students post-pandemic recovery. As was recently reported on in the Oregonian, we know that black students in this district face the risk of being overdisiplined in a way that continues to undergur the preschool to prison pipeline. We know that students in this district risk being overlooked day after day in each and every one of their classrooms where many of them are one of the only or one of a few and often see very very few if

033any black folks who look like them imparting knowledge at the front of their classrooms. As has been said and as will continue to be said, I don't envy the district's the district leadership's uh position right now. You guys have a lot of competing priorities, but what I will say is this. As is clear from these documents, the CBSC is one of the only capital bond projects that this district can come in at under budget significantly. And we are the only people that you all even ask to do that. We're the only ones you don't go back to the back to the bond to get more money for. And so in this specific instance, I would like to make it clear that there is no question as to whether or not the CBSC needs to go

034forward this time around. What we need to do is make sure that we in that we invest in black children the say that the way that we say that we want to center them and every other student and eliminate the risks that we can if we come together as a community on this project, not just this year, not just next year, but for decades to come. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks, Erin. [clears throat] >> Is Erin last? [snorts] >> Listen, I can't go forward with this either. I think an update is saying that um due diligence is in and that we're going to talk about this as a whole group, but the community is not here for this conversation and we can't we can't have an item on the agenda that's had so

035many advocates for it on the one hand and then an item like this that the community is not here to be present for the update. >> So, as you know, this is the timing in terms of the update has nothing to do with me. Um the full board gave a directive on September 9th to review. We're just reviewing due diligence. We're just getting due diligence presented to us. Nothing's happening. Let me just finish. Can I just want to clarify something? >> Can I just finish um with this committee at our November meeting. So that did not change. Um in fact, this meeting was originally scheduled for November 3rd and I offered to move it to November 10th to give staff additional time. And they've done an incredible job and I'm excited to hear what they

036have to say today. And as far as noticing the meeting goes, um I never removed this meeting from the agenda um and asked staff repeatedly uh to notice it. So if anyone has concerns about that, I would direct them to staff. Um I'm fulfilling my duty as a board member and as a committee chair to share due diligence for a real estate transaction when the board directed us to do it. And the board wants to change that. We have to do that in a public meeting. I won't act unilaterally to change that direction. Um, I care about every single organization on this list, so to say. Otherwise, is you don't know me very well. Um, and every single student that will be impacted by this building. Um, I'm very much looking forward to hearing more

037um, not just from people in this room, from the community on I assume it will be November 18th. You and Chair Wong set that agenda. And at our next meeting, we'll be deliberating and voting as a board. So, >> so we we never voted on this and so it wasn't a board directive. board directive requires a a vote. We never voted on it. It was mentioned. There were two of us that really wanted it to be on a an FIO committee and there was a majority that said, you know, didn't didn't argue, I think, at the point, but um it it was not a vote and I had to go back and review the meeting to understand that. So really process-wise, you know, I'm willing to like be flexible on process, but for this that's

038so you've heard from two of us now that it's important that we have the people in the room that have been working on this for a long time >> beyond five years. And I'm talking about decades. >> If we were deliberating, I would understand that, but we're not deliberating. >> We're a team. We're we're a team. And I I want to I want to I want to show up as a team member. Um, and I want to show up as a team member that is heard and seen much like to the students that we want to see be seen. And um, I feel very disrespected in the moment to be frank with you. Um, I'm a I'm a committee member. I'm on time. I'm here. I'm dedicated to the work and have been for six

039years. And my voice matters. And although we're not deliberating, I think that the community has been waiting to hear the due diligence eagerly, as had we. And so for the first public presentation of that to be something that they did not have the opportunity to attend doesn't feel right. Nothing for us. Nothing about us for us without us. Um can I ask both of you when I talked to each of you yesterday why you didn't bring this up then and why you chose this moment? >> When we spoke yesterday um I told you about my concerns about having this conversation today. Um, and >> and I think it's okay to bring it up in the moment. I know for me, um, it takes me sometimes a long time to process. And as I was thinking

040about this today and I saw back put back on the agenda, I I thought I had to say something. >> It was never taken off of the agenda. >> It it so when when I reviewed the when I reviewed the agenda, it was not on there. It had been taken off. >> I did not remove it from the agenda. And that's again working like a team with board leadership too. >> That would be really lovely. That would be nice. >> So anyway, I I would also prefer just to move it to a a whole community discussion on the 18th. I don't think there's anything between today and the 18th. It's going to be surprising. We've kind of, you know, got got some of our surprises out. Um I I would love to move it to

041the 18th. community would like to move it. And I I don't know what else I can do as a as a colleague to to ask otherwise. We we don't have the people in the room that care about this viscerally whose children are not doing very well in our schools and have not been for decades. And and it's a really important not to [clears throat] discount that the optics are not good. Regardless of whether people know you or not, the optics are are not good. They're just not good. >> You can say one thing, but where are and and we need to stay student focused. >> This is definitely student focused and part of our job. >> Yes. And it needs to be community focused because these are our community's babies. >> It is community focused

042and this is transparency around a significant real estate action, real estate transaction that we are legally obligated to have oversight over. We have due diligence. We need to deliberate. We need to vote. And we have two meetings to do it. It's not a lot of time. >> What are we gonna accomplish in the next eight days? >> We could have what what I mean >> time to formulate any questions. Ask tough questions. There's a lot of questions. So, some of us need time >> and we have we have time to ask questions between today and the 18th. >> Why? >> I got questions as well. >> I'm not understanding what you're so concerned about. >> I'm concerned that the community to move forward in May before you started is not in the room. >> We

043are reviewing due diligence due diligence. Exactly. >> We can do it in a week and we can as the chair you can say you know I've heard from committee members when I've heard from my committee members whether it was a vote. It was it wasn't it was a clear consensus. >> It was not a consensus. Do you want to go back and review? >> I did. >> It's not a consensus. It's not a board directive. >> We did not vote on it. I think we know exactly what happened in the meeting. It's Patty, you look like you want to say something. >> Yeah, I'm I don't see Michelle why you are so upset about this. We are just trying to do as um Director Lefort says, do what we said we would do. We're just

044giving a quick report. We're not saying that we can't do it again in at our next large board meeting. In fact, maybe this is a call now to be sure people come to that meeting. Um I don't I just can't believe that Director Leafford is doing this for any kind of reason except to get the information out there. >> I I don't think that there's anything nefarious, but I've been I'm a product of this uh district. It's a 170 year old system. For the first time, last board, we had a majority minority board. We don't have that anymore. Our outcomes are barely changing. They have not changed in 170 years. And I want to see the community that has a stake and has skin in the game in the room for this conversation. to do

045so without the members of the community that will benefit from this program is is it's shameful. I don't know how else to say it. I'm embarrassed for us right now. I've watched this for many many years. I don't want to even say how many. I've watched my s my children go through the system. I've seen the outcomes and the disparity and outcomes between black kids and and everybody else and native kids, by the way. And I think that the community wants to be here. They couldn't be here with a 2-hour notice. It's it just and as a as a colleague and committee member, I'm asking you and pleading that we wait until we can get people in the room that really care, that have skin in the game. They have kids that aren't reading in

046the eighth grade, seventh grade. That's who needs to be in the room when we're talking about, you know, the the physical parts of the building. We need people in the room that are going to advocate for us to move forward. and we've got a letter in front of us that ask asks us to move forward. >> So what is significant to me in deciding whether or not we have this conversation now or we have it later is that [snorts] [gasps] like what the purpose is of bringing the issue to this committee and what our intent was at the time. Um what we needed to be able to do was to review the due diligence and um and the and the report is public. We've had that conversation as a board and gave staff direction and

047meeting again before they've had the opportunity to do what we just asked them to do a week ago without the opportunity for the community to be present. I I understand where you're coming from. Um and I don't see the harm. And I checked with Sharon. We're not like doing anything we're not supposed to be doing by not having this conversation today. But like I said before, I think an update can also be the due diligence is in. We've directed the staff to find out more information and we'll discuss as a whole board next week. I think that can be an update and I think that's what would be respectful in this case given that the community is not in the room. I know it's not um a discussion item and doesn't feel significant uh to

048others, but I think for folks to not have noticed, not have had the opportunity to be here to hear what is in the report for themselves is unfair. >> Okay, I've got something. Deborah, do you can do Could you mind coming up? Um, I just wanted to ask, you know, I did request multiple times last week that this be noticed, that this meeting was noticed so that the community could show up. So, can you tell me what the issue was? >> Sure. Uh, Deborah Khori, um, chief of staff at Portland Public Schools. I think the where the confusion is occurring right here is there's several items that are confusing. One of them is that um the board leadership directed staff to put this agenda item next week when we could complete the due diligence and

049have a thorough discussion and that was what was sent in the minutes that we sent from the um Monday agenda setting meeting. So, I I think um it's similar to when mom and dad are having an argument and you got the kids stuck in the middle and that's honestly kind of where the staff have been between a rock and a hard place. >> Okay. So, yeah. So, no one um notified me about that, but seem to be having other conversations. Um, no in the m in the minutes it didn't say that someone had unilaterally removed it from this committee agenda and I'm the chair of this committee. So no, that was not included in the minutes and no one had that conversation with me and it means the conversations were be were being had with

050others. So um that's what happened here. So in order in terms of you know me having anything to do with this not being on the agenda, I did everything I could knock down dragout to get this on the agenda today on time well in advance so that the community could be here. just to be clear. Okay. Well, we obviously have some pro procedural stuff that we need to figure out in terms of how we're how we're managing agendas and how all of this is happening. Um, and when I think about the people who are most impacted by this conversation, they're not in the room. I don't know how it happened. I don't know when it happened. I don't know why it happened. But I think it's important that they be here. >> Well, I think

051for transparency, we can say that, you know, um the board leadership and I the board leadership meets and we look out over 3 to six weeks to find out to balance um basically demands on staff. Um whenever staff has to come to a meeting like this, it it requires uh in some cases quite a bit of uh labor. uh labor that means that they're not doing other work that's maybe on their work plan, but they're instead pivoting to respond to this. And it's looking out over um our our work sessions and our board meetings and trying to balance demands on staff, demands on us um in a way that makes sense. Um sometimes sequencing um you know, it's important to sequence things um in order sometimes and not kind of random. And so there's multiple,

052you know, considerations made during those meetings to rightsize all of our meetings. I don't know if you've noticed, but some of our meetings end at 8:30 and other would end at 11:30. And so we're trying to um, you know, consider staff time. Staff has to stay after work for the meetings that go until 11:30 and then they have to show up here at, you know, 8:00. And so we're we're looking out over a horizon to plan for future topics, allow some flexibility. You know, it's it's multiple things that are considered. It's not, you know, nobody wants to shut anybody down. Um it's literally about sequencing and timing and should we have conversation A before B or be before A. That's a board conversation and that's part of my concern here is that I'm just going

053to lay the blame squarely where it belongs and board leadership moved this without running it by the committee chair. Did not run it by the rest of the board and that's why we're here today. I just like I said I just want to be clear that the only reason this wasn't noticed was because of that. It had nothing to do with me. I asked repeatedly over and over and over over the last couple of weeks. So, >> and I know there have been lots of conversations and I'll just apologize. I think that the committee chair should be notified. Um, I agree with you there. I I'm sorry I didn't realize it had happened. Um, but I also want you to understand that those um planning meetings are again we're we're thinking about lots of people.

054We're thinking about staff. We're thinking about volunteers. We're thinking about sequencing. We're thinking about timing. And um it's multi multiffactorial. it's not, you know, unilaterally taking things off. Again, this conversation with the entire board, um, and the majority of the board would like to have it at one time, is scheduled for the 18th for a regular board meeting on Tuesday. >> If you are saying the majority of the board, that means that you've had individual conversations with the board with board members, which is a serial public meet. It's a serial meeting. So, that's the kind of thing that concerns me because I've also talked with board members as well and everybody was 100% under the impression that it would be happening at this meeting. I feel like we're beating a dead horse here, but that

055sort of thing is exactly why we're sitting here having a conversation like this for half an hour and uh not talking about moving all of this forward. >> Yeah. Well, we obviously need some discussion about how to communicate and but I don't think we have to have it [laughter] here for another 10 minutes or so. So, um I think director Lefor, what do you want to do? >> I'm ready to go to our next agenda. >> Well, and also just so scheduling is not subject to scheduling is completely different where you're are you available Monday? Are you available Monday? Are you available Monday? You're not available Monday. Okay, now we're talking to everybody else about Wednesday. Does Wednesday work? So, scheduling is outside of that public meeting or serial meeting uh when we're trying to

056get um everybody in the room together. Uh which is probably why one of the reasons we do our scheduling on an annual basis as to the extent that we can is so we can agree that everybody can show up at six o'clock or sometimes five on Tuesdays. But the scheduling is outside of this uh serial meeting. Right. We had written an agreement for this meeting and it was changed without public discussion with the board. So not changed. I mean I did, like I said, I never changed it. So there were other people making decisions that were not me. >> And and I also think there's some room for for committee members to participate in the conversation in the agenda setting. And and I know like I said I that >> you did at at the

057September 9th board meeting. >> And I I I'm asking that we uh Yes, I did. I was at that board meeting. I was not when we we talked about we went through a series of amendments which failed. And so I'm just I'm asking today as a committee member and a community member that has a lot at stake with the success of the center for black student excellence um that we put off the conversation for eight days. We invite the entire board to get the information at the same time. For the public that's here and that's watching. We will be having the same conversation on the 18th. I invite everybody to come. Um it's it's scheduled for the 18th as well. There's no reason to have two conversations. Um but yeah, I I think we need

058to move on. Um you've heard from, you know, the majority of your uh committee. And again, I mean, I think we're working in a democratic process, but um I'm very strongly would like to hold this off until we can have people in the room that uh have skin in the game and that have been greatly impacted by by, you know, uh boards that are mostly white for the last 170 years, frankly. >> Okay. Okay. Well, I appreciate all of your input and I'm just want to think about it a little bit as we work our way through some of the rest of these items. Fair enough. >> Yes. >> Okay. Good. >> Yes. Okay. Seismic. Um our first well our second topic uh is a seismic update. So um Dr. Franco, would you like to

059introduce this topic tonight? >> Yeah, sure. And I will um call up who's going to help as well is um our chief of [snorts] integrated operations Tom, our interim senior director of OSM, Sarah Norman. And then also we have online we have the principal from home structures and that is Jennifer Edgars. And and Roseanne, am I sharing my sharing my screen? Are you making me a panelist? Okay. So, thank you um Director Lefort and of course committee members. So, first I just want to say uh first and foremost is that this is um this has been a iterative process. I think that we uh obviously have uh not only used the feedback from this committee but then also we've had a number of conversations we've received a number of uh emails as well uh throughout

060this and I think you've seen that uh uh throughout that we've kind of refined a little bit uh of our criteria and so we're going to kind of walk through that piece and I just want to say too that we acknowledge and understand uh the difficulty of this process. This has been extremely difficult for us as well. I think um it was um one of the uh parents who said it perfectly is that we have unfortunately we don't have um um we have a limited amount of money in regards to this and we have a number of buildings uh that we need um to obviously um uh fix up from a seismic perspective and so we have to prioritize and so I just want to acknowledge that piece. um that this has been a difficult

061process but we are we are excited that we are have been making some significant progress in this. So just want to talk through a little bit about the process. So this is the agenda for today is we are going to talk about seismic that's first up and then uh Tom Rogers is going to talk a little bit in regards to um maintenance um in terms of work order requests and then talk a little bit in terms of comparisons how we compare in reference to similar districts. Uh we also have some uh verbal updates in terms of grant bull lights uh PAF and then the RFP timeline and I know there's still conversations regards to CBSC and I will say this too in regards to the CBSC. The update today is intended to be very general

062I think very specific to what Michelle or Director uh Depass and Director Chase Miller mentioned. I think that first of all, we're not completely through the due diligence process. There's still a lot of in there's still information uh that we still need to fine-tune and get together. Uh and then also there are uh it is a uh it is absolutely very um important topic to many community members who are not represented here. And so um and we do want I know that this is a a want from the full board to have that level of conversation. And so if the decision is made by direct 4 to have it the updates is going to be very high level in in general. Uh just want to let you know that. Okay. So this is from a

063seismic perspective. Uh we are going to talk a little bit about our framework for our prioritization and then talk a little bit in terms of our updates in regards to deliverables. Uh so this has been a consistent uh theme whenever we've um updated in regards to seismic. So if you take a look here I think it's important that we take a look in terms of progress. So here and I' and this is the same list except I've highlighted a few things. If you notice on this list you see the T's there. Those are our title schools. I think there was a question that came up in regards to you know how are our um how is equity looked at in regards to uh the prioritization. And I will see I will say that is um

064it is foundationally single-handedly a part of our criteria. Um even though it's not necessarily specifically mentioned as part of the three anytime you come up with a prioritiz prioritization list we always take a look and see okay is that make sense? Uh are we hitting the schools um that we really should be hitting? And so just want to give you an idea. um that overarchingly in 2012, 2017, 2020, you can see that I we think we have if you think of um elementary and K8 schools, we have 25 title one schools. And if I were to look at the data, we have in terms of either full retrofits or partial and roof level seismic improvements, we have um we have done work on 16 of them. Uh and then of course that doesn't include you

065know we have work that's coming up on Jefferson like for example with uh the new modernization uh and those types of things that are going to be coming up via the 2020 and 2025 bond. So this is just a little bit of context in regards to that question around um equity. So just a reminder uh what we talked about last time and what we agreed upon is that we are going to be incorporating the hybrid approach which is uh looking at schools some schools will get a full retrofit uh whereas we have uh we look at or look to uh improve uh parts at other schools. Uh this will allow us to reduce the overall risk score uh across the district. And so and this will also allow us to uh take advantage of SRGP

066grants which are state grants uh which are um around the $2 million uh range. So, I'm going to introduce Jennifer Edgars, who is a, as I mentioned, is a principal with Home Structures, uh, which is a structural engineering firm with a local office in Portland. Jennifer has over 20 years of structural engineering experience with almost 20 spent or 20 spent in Portland. Her primary focus is around increasing safety and resilience across school districts in Oregon through seismic assessments, retrofits, and renovations of existing school buildings. She's collaborated closely with Portland Public Schools for over 12 years and has completed a number of seismic upgrades with PPS and other local districts. She also was just recently awarded the women of vision award winner which is a pretty neat deal. Uh that's the that's the region's pre-minent recognition

067in educational program that supports uh women who are shaping uh the built environment with their technical skill leadership mentoring community involvement and the creation of opportunities for the future generation of women in the industry. She didn't want me to mention that, but I just had to because that's a really neat deal. So, Jennifer, and she's, you know what, she she's actually uh calling in from New Zealand. So, thank you. That's right, Jennifer. You're from New Call from Okay. >> Yeah. [laughter] Yeah. Calling in from New Zealand. So, I just wanted to be able to support everyone here. Thank you for having me. Um, so I'll I'll just um and thank you, John, for that introduction. I really appreciate that. Um, I've really appreciated working with the PPS team um through this process. It's been a

068a very integral process um and I know that they care a lot about um trying to get this right. So um I'll just jump right in and talk about the weighted scoring model. It's something that we um have been looking at. Um and as it's been noted and and reported on, 90% was placed on seismic risk. Um mainly due um to the fact that the seismic risk scores being so close together near the top that we needed a high percentage to prioritize seismic um perive. uh 5% was included on facility improvements when considering a full campus upgrade so we can tackle some additional elements while we're in the school and and being likely pretty disruptive during these seismic upgrades. Um and 5% was um considered on enrollment and we'll talk about it a little bit

069later but the two schools that are noted for full seismic campus coming out of this um are both unreinforcing unreinforced masonry which we refer to as URM schools. uh with every con concrete floor system. So um um yes and and understanding the need for PPS is um and is vast, but these are two really important ones to to tackle. >> So So before we get into that, just want to um just revisit in terms of our November action. So this is what we've been doing in terms of establishing a school priority based uh approved formula. Uh we are in the process of securing outside grant support and preparing a draft application. We are in process for that and we are launching procurement for design services and then launching >> [clears throat] >> uh or beginning

070facility dashboard prototype. We've talked about that and so we are in the works in terms of uh getting that squared away and that's a big piece in terms of just wanting to letting everybody especially the community know where we are at in regards to that uh that process. Also you could see here again just a little bit of an update uh which I talked about the ABC approaches were defined. We are doing the hybrid approach. Uh we're going to talk obviously in terms of the schools. We'll have a a list of schools which you have seen and obviously want some feedback on that recommendations align uh via the 2025 bond. It's 100 million. So uh that's the our budget. Uh and then uh homes, you know, Jennifer is going to talk about the homes assessments

071and the scoring methodology. And then of course, the next step is to garner feedback, which is the approval of the prioritization lifts list and scope for our first round uh of projects. >> Okay, Jennifer. >> So, I'll I'll just dive right in. Um and just as a reminder, um a hybrid approach was taken to balance the dollars available with the largest seismic risk reduction impact. Um for the full campus retrofits, we're able to fit two campuses within this budget to leave meaningful dollars available for additional retrofits. Um all with the goal of being able to impact more students across a larger number of campuses. Um the targeted retrofits are based on either high risk scoring building parts which are typically unreinforced masonry um uh full building parts. An example of this um is the URM

072gymnasium at Kelly um which is a high-risk building part where most of the rent rest of that campus is wood frame. Um, so this would allow us to greatly impact um that campus's overall risk score while addressing the UR part and saving dollars um deferring the woodframe lower risk part for other campuses. A second application to targeted retrofits are to retrofit certain high-risk loadbearing URM walls. So it's unreinforced masonry walls. Um one example of this is a loadbearing URM wall within an otherwise uh concrete building. Um, a lot of times these walls were initially constructed to aid in future uh future additions. One example of this is at Winter Haven. There are two unreinforced masonry walls supporting a heavy concrete roof in the gymnasium. Um, so these walls are a high-risisk local element that we

073have recommended are addressed to reduce the seismic risk for PPS. Sorry, Jennifer. Did you have more or is that uh >> Oh, no. [laughter] >> So, um I'm going to go ahead and pause for questions before we move on to the uh maintenance update. >> Do you guys have any questions? >> I did. I had a question about enrollment and also you know I think about like when you're making decisions like this you know you want to develop an algorithm that results in like to to aid you in your best decision- making um and so I know like 90% is on the risk the score risk which is smart I'm curious about the enrollment what is that what what about enrollment >> yeah so I can take that one so >> I mean to the

074person that from Ariel that from Caesar Chavez that was talking about you know your work and looking at making sure all the kids >> Yeah, it's a good >> safe and the number of kids in buildings. >> Yeah, it's a good question. I think >> curious. >> So, this the enrollment piece um is is very specific to the eventual right sizing conversation that we're going to be having. >> That's a perfect answer. Thank you. >> Appreciate it. So, um I thought the the new formula was interesting because um >> it almost feels like an overcorrection. >> Um I noticed that there wasn't any consideration given for equity, which is concerning. [gasps] And um [sighs] [snorts] when I think about like the schools in terms of riskiness, just strictly like by the numbers, right? If you're

075starting at 9.9 and going to a 9.0, >> um you know, a nine or a 9.9, like that's going to be a flattened building. And I'm concerned if we're not thinking about equity um that we're going to end up in a situation where uh the schools that are the schools that kids of color go to are the ones that collapse. >> Sure. >> Um so my own child's school is just a nine. >> Um and so um I'm I'm curious how we're caring for that woodline. >> Oh, it's woodlock. Okay. >> It'll be on the slide deck next time. [laughter] >> So I will say this and I appreciate that. uh that call out and and like I said this has been an iterative process and um I will say foundationally equity yes is and

076let me talk you through a little bit in terms of um the process and even though it's not listed in the criteria let me talk through about some of the thinking and where equity shows up. So we first started out if you can recall with uh using CSIT TSI kind of as as as part of the formula. However, we are so confident that we're not going to have any CSIT TSI schools because our achievement is going to go through the roof that uh that can change, right? So, in 3 years, I mean, the reality is when we start going through these seismic improvements, we won't be able to do anything before 27. And so, that could change. And so, uh the title designation I think is a really good place to start. And so if

077I were to look at the list of title schools and if I were to go back to for example that list of schools at the very front. Okay. So we cross reference these. And so as you can see like Woodlon is there and has received some seismic improvements right up to this point already. Um, if you look at like Kelly is also one who's not on the is is going to be I think is here. It's a title school. It's the only title school here which I get. Um, but that's going to be is one that's slated to receive some level of improvement. So, if I go through the list, so I'm just going to say this. So, of the 25 schools, um, again, coming back to your point because I want to make sure

078I I nail this down, Arita, Boisey, Buckman, Chavez, Chapman, King, Fabian, James, John, Kelly, Lent, Markham, Mary'sville, Wrigler, Vestal, Woodlon, Woodmir. Those are all highlighted schools who are title who have had some level of seismic improvement up to this point, right? We're going to include Kelly, right? which is going to be in addition to and so that leaves again other schools. It it leaves I'm just going to say a number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 eight schools who are not title who are not necessarily on the list for any level of seismic improvement and it doesn't mean they won't get any level of seismic improvement. I will say that you have to look at other factors though which we had mentioned including enrollment right those those are things that we we do have

079to look at. >> So is it fair to say and um maybe you addressed this before but as we go into the consolidation conversations what is on the list and where schools fall >> could move or shift depending on what decisions we make there. Okay. >> Yes. And it's just so you know cuz we're starting this conversation now. I mean and it needs to we we need to get this seismic piece like it's it's an absolute priority and I want everyone to hear that from me. This is an absolute priority. We don't want this hanging out here. Um it just so happens that this is preemptive before the the right sizing conversation which we are gearing up for. And so like in an ideal world would be having the right sizing conversation kind of in

080conjunction with so that we right so that we could have some correlation there right away. But there will be some adaptations and adjustments I'm sure moving forward. But um but I just wanted I hope you feel better in terms of like we in terms of that equity piece. I mean that is foundationally um we look at that significantly. I want you to know >> I'm curious uh so you can you can there's maps available of um areas of like we know what the soil compositions are >> in our region. Is there some reason why we wouldn't add wouldn't look at um geological survey maps that show like zones that are going to be liquefaction where we know that there's going to be more um earthquake activity. This is someone who lived in a home that

081fell off the foundation and the neighbor's home across a driveway didn't. And so there there's different impact different depending on the soils, depending on the building type obviously, but I'm talking about the soils underneath the building. So is there a way that we can to be more data informed to add another point to that where we want to get at doing this really really well um that tells us where so we already know like above ground the composition of the buildings and the construction style depending on the year and reinforcement masonry can we also look at what's underneath and where are the most likely um liquefaction zones and zones that are on um things that are in movable um I don't know whether that's basalt or some kind of a, you know, a harder surface.

082There are consultants that we can find to do. I know there's not a lot of money floating around, but that's a way of looking at um could be another way of um prioritizing schools um if they're in in in very unsafe geological zones. >> No, thank you for that. Jennifer, do you have any um >> I saw you unmuted there. I say funding aside for doing that that study or not is not my place to say, but um but I mean there there could be um some some benefit to honing in sight by sight to get a better understanding. I will say that we looked at a general overlay and and zoomed in and raised red flags if there were huge red flags. I'm not sure that it would drastically change the scoring of those

083schools that are scoring high already. um in terms of their building vulnerabilities are more above grade um than than below grade. Um it could it could change some of those somewhat, but I don't expect it to drastically change um the top schools, but um certainly more data points are always helpful. This is this I'm not like a geologist or whatever so this might be um or a mathematician um so this might be a silly question but I'm was just curious whether we have um considered approaching the seismic program from the other way around which is looking at the schools that are least risky first in conjunction with the consolidation conversation. Um so that we're considering whether we actually consolidate into safer schools, closing the more dangerous schools and getting uh more for our money. Yeah.

084I I mean it is. And I think that kind of goes into I don't know if Tom you want to talk a little bit about kind of the deferred maintenance piece a little bit, but >> I think that's a really slippery slope. Um 100% that makes a lot of sense to me. Let's go back. Um we also need to look at the deferred maintenance piece. How much deferred maintenance do we have in the sites? And for a lot of the sites that have a very high seismic don't necessarily have a high deferred maintenance score and vice versa. Some that might have a very high deferred maintenance score, a low seismic. So even though it might be a suitable position, suitable site to fix the seismic, we still have a lot of deferred maintenance to do.

085So, we're really trying to balance both seismic and deferred maintenance and the voice of the community as well. >> However, since 2012, if I can add this, if you don't mind, since 2012, um, OSM has been advocating for possible relocation of students in order to get through the buildings faster with the seismic upgrades. And so what we are trying to do is put together a consolidated plan to address the high-risisk schools the quickest that we can. And some of that is going to involve looking at schools that are in a good good way that we could potentially distribute students to. We have not completed that plan. We're just in the early talkings of that. But that's the fastest way to get through these upgrades. It's also looking at the campuses as a whole. um how

086much money have we spent on these campuses thus far? What is the overall I mean it's just the big plan. I mean it's it's it's a lot of planning and there's a lot of factors that go into it. But I do appreciate that question. >> Let me give you uh one more factor to think about. Um as I was mulling this over, I'm thinking about like um a Rose City Park and a Lee who are two and a half miles apart. Mhm. >> One on the east side of 82nd and one on the west side of 82nd. And as we're making these decisions, I just want to make sure that we're caring for um you know, communities that are they're part of the same larger community. And there's different class and socioeconomic stuff [clears throat]

087based on location. Um and and this is all the consolidation stuff too, right? But I want to make sure um no shade to Rose City Park. I wanted to have all the nice things. My baby niece is gonna go there. Um but I also want to make sure that we're not um just making assumptions that like we'll just bring the Lee kids over to Rose City Park um without, you know, I want to make sure we're looking at the big picture >> and being fair. >> Yep. I appreciate that. Thank you. Well, you two covered most of my questions. Um, I think the one main question I have circling back to I mean you was talking about Rose City Park. I have um are I mean we see BCS and RO city park coming up

088repeatedly and I'm just wanted to ask is it because they're obviously you know the most obvious candidates for full retrofits no matter which way we slice it we can just accept it and move on and start addressing that's kind of what it's feeling like >> it is you know we've we've run through you know the thing with the weights um you know if you wait even if you wait um say you wait the risk even a little bit lower and you put in deferred maintenance a little bit higher. Um I would say Rose City and then also Beverly Clearary. Um I mean those always are always in the top two or three. >> Yeah, that's kind of what I was figuring. >> They are. And so um regardless of of how to your point, however

089you slice it and so we've ran it a few times. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um you all covered off in everything else. They have the equity piece, prioritizing certain types of buildings over others. Um, potential school closures and consolidations, all that stuff. I have one one random, this is a little in the weeds, but since we're talking about liquefil, I'm going to go for it. [laughter] Um, what is the relative difference in risk between a building part that's rated as like a nine or a 9.9? >> That's such a good question. >> Thank you, >> Jennifer. You have a answer to that question. Did you hear that question? >> Yeah, sorry. I was trying to get unmuted here. Um, yeah, that's a really tough question. Um, because it's all it's all relative and the

090intention of the scoring system is to provide a kind of a hierarchy of, if you will, of of risk, but um, earthquakes are random. Earthquakes aren't consistent. It's all based on probabilistic seismic data. Um so it's a really hard question to answer um because a building will perform slightly differently in one type of earthquake than a different earthquake. Um so we were really using um base principles from Haz and FEMA as our baseline for developing our seismic risk scoring system. Um and that's truly the basis. So that's um based on um a lot of um data and information that has been poured into it. Um, so I don't really know that I can exactly answer your question specifically with a specific um, performance difference. Um, I would say that unreinforced masonry buildings are um, well

091known as high-risk building, right? It's been a conversation in the city of Portland. Other jurisdictions have requirements for mandatory seismic upgrades for all unreinforced masonry buildings in the city um, in in different cities. San Francisco has that and so on. Um so the um uh damage state of unreinforced masonry buildings I would say is a lot higher and those are kind of in the 9.8. Some are some are the scores have been adjusted down because maybe a portion of that building was retrofitted, but it doesn't mean the rest of that building um is um has been retrofitted. Um compared to concrete buildings that are kind of hovering in that 8.5 to nine, right? There are a lot of if you look at the scattered map of our risk scores there are a lot of um

092orange squares concrete buildings hovering in the 1920s because there was a big boom in Portland and a lot of schools were built in that range. So I would expect um higher damage from our unreinforced masonry buildings than the than the concrete ones. >> Great. Thank you. right there like that's everything else >> it is not so one of the things so it's it actually comes up to around 75 and the reason is this is because um you know there and Sarah maybe you could talk a little bit more we think it's important that um we we don't want to be in the place because right now this is kind of projection right in terms of cost um and so we want to be smart given we have again a hund00 million uh budget and we

093don't there are things we know they're going to come up that are going to be unforeseen. >> Correct. And we're currently um we're not designed we're not permitted uh we're identifying the the campuses that we are targeting. Um we are using rough orders of magnitude based on historic data with an accelerator. So, we do have we do have a bit of a cushion because we have not put these out um because they're not designed yet. Um but the hope is that we will be able to do additional campuses. But we are starting with this list because these are the ones that have been identified. Um and we are within budget with these campuses. And the hope is that between getting these campuses actually bid out and designed uh we will have additional funding that we'll

094be able to do additional campuses. Okay. So, I I'm going to bid farewell to Jennifer and say thank you so much for uh coming on this call and um >> Yeah, of course. Anytime. >> Appreciate it, Jennifer. >> Yeah, of course. Thanks everybody. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Okay, so I'm going to turn it over to Tom. >> Good evening, directors. Thank you. um Tom Rogers, chief of integrated operations and uh proudly uh I know you you received an amazing briefing last week from uh or last FIOC from Frank Levit and this is kind of expansion on that. So I'd like to give you the current state and kind of best practices and where we're moving forward. So current staffing we have 77 uh full-time employees across all of our trades. Uh based on

095the 2022 Saison facility report which I believe is is public. Um the association of physical plant administrators recommends 113 FTEES uh for PPS based on its size to reach a minimum uh app level of three. And for context, level one is pristine, level five is debilitated. So they recommend 113 FTEEs in order to reach Apple level 3 for PPS sites, which equates to a 36 uh full-time employee differential, which approximately $5.4 million of a gap and a 47% shortfall. Uh PPS currently maintains 10 million square feet of building space plus another 10 million square feet of ground space to include uh HVAC sites and things like that outside of the actual building. So this graph is basically to highlight where we stand based on Apple recommendations and with similar districts. On the far right hand

096side is the APA benchmark graph where APA recommends one maintenance full-time employee for every 120,000 square ft uh that the district is required to maintain. On the far left we see Portland Public Schools, our 77 FTEEs. One FTE is required to maintain 250,000 square ft of of district space. Conversely, compared to other districts of similar size, uh Seattle, San Diego, they are slightly lower than us, but still higher than the APA average. It I haven't found a uh a school district that is actually meeting the recommended APA average at this point. So although we are doing a lot more with less, uh we're still not far above away from our competitors. As competitors as in other districts, we always want to be the best. So, how are we doing more with less? What are we

097trying to do with the with the amazing full-time employees that we have? Um, we've worked on our processes and based on those processes, we have a 95 plus uh% of work orders completed within their service level targets. Uh, we have fewer emergency shutdowns and our preventative maintenance completion is increasing year-over-year. And we consistently prioritize our title one and TSI CSI facilities as well as our aging facilities. We put that into our work order priority matrix which I believe Frank went over last last week last meeting. Here is another graph showing how we have improved on uh those commitments. Uh in 2022 is the gray graph. In 2022 we only completed 85% of our emergency work orders within a 24-h hour period. whereas uh in 2025 we're up to 95%. So this basically compares how quickly

098how are we meeting those benchmark commitments that we've made to our district. And this is our graph of open work orders over the years since 2023. So you can see we've made a considerable effort to prioritize preventative maintenance and catch up on some open work orders. So we although we are below the APE benchmark, we are still performing better than previous years. We still have a lot of work to do, don't get me wrong. Uh but our continued focus is on preventative maintenance, modernizing our uh our age facilities and uh keeping our FTEEs responsive to ensure that our sites are warm, safe, and dry. >> Questions on this uh part of the presentation? I don't have any questions, but um yeah, the the progress, the improvement here is really great to see. >> Yeah, that's

099one of my comments that I was just uh really amazing to see the improvement on the number of open work orders that are managed year-over-year and um based on the open work order slide, it looks like it's been cut by about 30% which is amazing. Um it's really impressive. What do you attribute that to? >> Amazing full-time employees. >> Like, >> that is a great answer. Thank you. [laughter] We don't recognize our employees well enough and um so thank you for you know your contribution and the staff that you supervise um that that is a lot. It's a big it's a big plant to take care of >> huge >> um with lots of I mean just so many things ages of buildings etc. So thank you. I want to call out too that that

100was um a key issue in the strike was the condition of our buildings and I when you said warm, safe and dry, >> that is a powerful response >> um especially given a situation where we don't have financial resources to be putting towards stuff. So, thank you for hearing that call. >> Certainly. Um, so what are a couple examples of the types of work orders that continually would get pushed to the bottom of a priority list? And I ask because um there's been some talk in this committee about, you know, coordinating with some, you know, parent groups, local businesses to maybe take on some sort of like, you know, homegrown projects, but there's a difference between, you know, volunteering to replace ceiling tiles versus, you know, let's have a painting party. So like what are

101the things where you're just like you know what we just like never get around to that >> honestly um it's aesthetics that usually get down to the bottom of the list as swing shift which uh really prioritize work inside our sites when students aren't there so we can't disrupt we don't want to be disruptions disruptions to learning. So that has been a focus to try and improve some of that those aesthetic work orders but there's just so many that have been put down over the years. So, a hole in the wall is going to have a lot less priority than a a leaking pipe. >> You know, we want to make sure they're warm, safe, and dry. And then I'm I'm open to hearing what if the community involvement. Of course, it need to be

102managed by PPS to make sure we still have our standards and all that sort of stuff and we need to manage it. >> We just thought we'd add one more giant thing. >> Sure. Why not [laughter] bring it? Actually, I had a conversation with uh Chris Breida recently um about whether some of this is stuff that CTE students perhaps could take on as part of their >> We are in we are in conversations with our CTE team. We would love to get a program started. I don't want to make any promises that I can't deliver in but um it's definitely >> including our trades. I think it's a lot of opportunity there. >> So glad to hear that. >> Yeah. Um, so my last question is, so if staffing levels remained the same, um, knowing

103that we're short approximately, it sounds like 36 FTE just to kind of maintain where we're at. Um, are you expecting, now I don't want to like I'm not trying to, you know, like when's this going to when's everything going south, but like are you expecting to see our work orders uptick again or is that just really even possible to assess? >> An uptick on work orders? Um, well, work orders are good. we like people seeing. We want to know. We want to hear about it. Uh when we don't get work orders from a site, that's when we know we need to get out there and put more attention to it. >> Um it's really difficult to predict, you know, it's really tough to say. >> Well, I got to tell you, I was it was

104um I was expecting to see the opposite of what you shared today. I expected to see that going this way and instead it went this way, which is really a testament to the staff and management. So, I'm really impressed. So, thank you. And I will definitely be circling back in terms of like what what are the things that we never get to and see if there's a way we can come together as a community to start um tackling those. >> Certainly, >> you get to stay up here a little bit more. >> So, uh a few verbal updates. So, Grant Bowl, >> Grant Bowl, I apologize. I'm not meeting my December goal. Uh it has pushed to March. Um Musco LED lighting permit is uh almost complete going through review uh finalizing this week to

105be submitted. Uh our equipment is ordered and uh will be delivered here on the first week of January and uh again we're looking for a first week in March uh installation and the lights on. This is also going to be 100% bond funded. >> That's great. I will tell you the community did raise a significant amount of funds to donate and I know that they will be donating. That's what it's earmarked for. So, I'll connect with you offline. >> Okay. >> Um about that. And um so the the thought is that they will be done and installed by let's say March 1st of track season, correct? Which I think was what we were correct worried about. >> Um and the permit will be the permit application will go in next week >> at the latest.

106>> Okay. Great. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Okay. PF Portland Clean Energy Fund. Uh quick update um of the PAF award the Portland Clean Energy Fund was $19.9 million all of which are in planning right now. Physical improvements are 16.9 million of which the 10 million was set aside for PAT for HVAC and thermal comfort and 3 million for student projects. Uh all of those student projects are still in the planning and selection phase. $700,000 of the 16.9 million have been uh approved and uh being executed. I know um director you had a question about if that's part of the 10 million. I I want to say 99% but I need to get back to you to make sure and really confirm that. Um, but our next steps is finalizing the 2026 to 2029

107project package, integrate that with our PPS sustainability portfolio and our capital planning and deliver quarterly progress reports to not only PAF and the PAT, but also to the board. >> I love PAF. I I work at the Bureau of Planning on Sustainability, and that's great. So, PAF is right there. >> I know they're busy. >> They're very busy. They're hiring and they're just >> trying to get dollars out the door. and we appreciate that. >> It was a really really great thing to hear about that award. >> So, I've got a few questions here. You know, I sent the questions to you in advance, so you you know what I'm going to be asking. So, um so >> the Pep terms dictate that we have two years to submit project proposals. Is that correct? >>

108Yes, the PPS is two years from award acceptance is submitted. Okay. To submit project proposal to PAF. The current working deadline for proposal submissions is mid 2026. >> Mid26. Okay. So, we've got about seven or eight months to pull that together. Okay, great. >> Um, and is I assume that's the work that is referenced in next steps. Is that correct? Okay. Um, you answered my question about deadlines. Not sure about um 700K. Um, okay. So in the risk sections um in terms of like the dual approval process with um with PAT um has that dual approval process happened at any point or is this something that we need to start doing with our union partners? >> So far this process has not delayed any current work but uh it is noted as a potential risk

109later on but right now our relationship with the PAT it hasn't indicated it's going to be a problem. Has have there been any meetings with them about these funds since >> I'm again I'll verify but I'm 99% yes but I will verify and get back to you. >> Um and then um so quarterly progress reports um you know based on our committee charter those would run through FIO. So I just wanted to suggest that um maybe at our next agenda setting meeting we go ahead and put our first quarterly report on the agenda for you know maybe it's March >> and um maybe sooner if you guys are you know don't think a better I know how busy you are let's figure it out but let's let's get that quarterly cadence going and um so

110you have a chance to you know schedule time with pat and um it's you know it's winter and um start addressing some of this. It's really exciting that we have these funds. So excited to see how we use them. >> Absolutely. >> So, thank you for that update. >> You're welcome. >> Thanks, Tom. All right. And our last verbal is uh RFP and and Liz Large is going to take this one. >> Good afternoon. Just a quick update on the program management services RFP. It is um well in progress. There have um there were three proposers uh for the the RFP or or in the RFP. Um all of whom have had some uh level of prior work with the district. So they are somewhat known. Um a decision is like expected likely by early

111next week. the decision to award, finishing the scoring, doing all of that, and then um contract negotiations would commence, all of that before it came to the board for final approval. That will be exciting. Just check that box. Any comments? >> Um, did you see the thought bubble above my head? But no, I don't have any comments. [laughter] >> I I was sensing it. I think we sat next to each other long enough where I could I could feel it. [laughter] Um, okay. So, I think the last thing we have, right, is our question about CBSE. So, um, so I've been sitting here thinking about what you both have said as I'm trying to listen to presentations as well. Um, and I just want to be clear that the reason the community did not have

112a chance to be here is because senior leadership declined repeatedly to notice this agenda item. Um it was a result of board leadership's actions without consulting with the committee chair outside of a public meeting with the board. Um we know what the agreement was in that meeting and if leadership you know wants to change it in the future you know I think the first person you would call would be the committee chair and I'm not sure what happened but it's just for me it's just not how we're going to build trust on the board. Um, I think it's extremely important that the black community has proper notice to attend all of our meetings, but clearly especially CBSC, which is why I've been asking for the posting of this agenda item since October 30th. Um, it's

113November 10th. So, I just don't want to lose sight of the fact that um, we're responsible for this oversight that is related to multi-million dollar real estate transaction. That's not staff's responsibility. It is legally ours. It's the board's. Um, and if the information hadn't been posted today, we would not have had due diligence. Uh, we I'm sorry, we would have had due diligence and deliberation on the same day. And that's a really hard way to establish transparency and trust to the public. So, I feel like when we don't follow our process, we end up in a mess like this, which is really uncomfortable. And it's not how I want, you know, us to be building relationships with each other as a board. So, um, but it also is just as important to me that the

114black community is here for this. So I am absolutely fine waiting. So and I wish you would have just called me. >> Yeah. And and so let's fix that internal stuff. Um that's solvable. We can we can learn to work together. Um we're in our forming, storming, norming, performing. And um I think that was a good point and I appreciate you um taking you know what I had to say seriously enough. It's really important to me. I've spent my most of my life that I've been in Portland within proximity to that corner. Um, and it's it's a really important corner. And today I was asked, you know, well, why not Whitaker? Why not put it on Whitaker? Whitaker, for one, is not in Albina. And also not moving forward is discounting the work that the

115five years of work that's gone into looking into where are we going to put this building? Where are we going to find a building that we can rehab? And literally every stone, every building has been overturn over overturned. We're working with professional brokers and internal staff. Um I mean they've looked at everything. Dana over there can has scars and we were talking about building in a public park. This is how diligent and how like how much work has gone into this. The community then had to, you know, once we the bond passed, we had to start looking at like, well, what's the governing structure and how will this interact with Portland public schools and what about the center for student excellence? Then the black student center for black student excellence and then there was a

116steering committee that was huge. So, the work moved very slowly. Um, and the work isn't done. There's still lots and lots of it's an iterative process. We've never done this before. Um, but I also just want to also say like this work is not happening in a vacuum. It is happening in concert with the Albina Vision Trust which is the a one-of-a-kind development um in the US that um is is also um feathering in with the preference policy that was um voted in by city council in 2016 to give anybody regardless of who they are the right to return to this neighborhood if their homes, their parents, their grandparents were taken through imminent domain. and the housing bureau's um deep push to develop familysiz housing, which in affordable housing terms, it's a little unusual to

117have three and four bedrooms, but that's what's being developed with um with with the housing bond and the metro bond are um multiple units, I think, 1100 units in within walking distance of the center for black student excellence or I should say with one north. Um they're named after, you know, Senator Margaret Carter, um Professor Daryl Milner, Milner, um many, you know, many community members that have been in this community for, you know, 80 years or whatever. And so it's um location is important. Whitaker is just a piece of land. There's nothing on it. It's also outside of Albina. The location here is perfect. and we have the means and the will to uh to make that building what it will um what what what it'll eventually become. And personally, I am very sad about

118the atrium, by the way. I love that building and I love that atrium. And I I um want to see that this worked for students. I wanted to see it work for um community members. And um I appreciate that you allowed us to that that you'll defer the conversation with the full board um until Tuesday. >> I'm happy to do it. So thanks to you both. >> Thank you. >> Is this the part where I join the meeting? [laughter] >> If you want to. >> Hold on. I lost my script. Hang on a second. >> Oh, I think you just did. >> Oh, excuse me. Go ahead. agenda items. >> Thank you. Yes, it was the last item uh the last thing that we are making a commitment to um on our on all of

119our committees, not just this one to ask if there ask about upcoming um topics for the board. Um >> yes. Oh, for the regular board meetings? >> No, for this committee meeting. >> Oh, sure. In other words, if I look back on the um if I look back on our previous agendas, I I don't see much that I need to know about, but I've been here a long time. Um, I guess I might be interested in um I I would be interested in people seeing, you know, maybe the site of the Jefferson modernization kind of actually experiencing Killingsworth just because it's right now the building is at the back of what you would consider the back of the lot and will be moved to the front of the lot where it has um relationships with

120the beautiful North Portland Library and with Killingsworth which is a very vibrant strip and like literally right across the street um Portland Community College. And I think like experiencing that as a pedestrian would be important. So I would like to get um a I don't know what we call it, a tour of Jefferson. >> Like a committee tour. >> Yeah. >> Like >> Yeah. Like like let's go take a walk. >> It won't be I mean maybe actually we probably wouldn't be able to do that, wouldn't would we? Because it wouldn't be we wouldn't have a camera >> following us. But I'm just >> you can figure out a way to do it if you public notice it. So >> if we public so maybe maybe we could it would be great to have the

121public come along with that. So, that would be one thing I would like to see. >> Okay, great. Well, I'll talk back with you and we'll figure it out. >> We're going on a road show. Um, [laughter] >> what I was thinking about maybe the next facilities meeting is from from Jefferson. >> That'd be fun. Um, >> but I'm I'm also thinking about uh Roosevelt facilities and uh the opportunity for them to be seen and experienced as well as discussed. >> Great. noted. That's all I have. So, um, our next meeting of the facilities improvement and oversight committee is December 9th and this meeting is adjourned. >> Thank you.