001I will Good evening everyone. I am going to call the regular meeting of the board of trustees on 6:18 2026 to order at 60:01 p.m. Item number one uh is uh roll call. I would ask Miss Parker to call the role. Trusty Hayashida >> here. >> Trusty Neidmam >> present. >> Trusty Sandi, >> I'm here. >> Trusty Tanaka >> present. >> And Trusty Periq is absent at this time, but we expect her. >> Okay. Item number two is approve the agenda. Is there a motion to do so? >> So moved. >> Has been moved by trustee Hayashida and seconded by trustee Tanaka. >> Here. Sorry. I didn't know if you seconded it. All in favor say I. I. I. All oppose. Same sign. >> Okay. And I know that um we normally read the public
002comments for close session the information. So I'll just go ahead and do so. Um in accordance with government code section 5494 54.3. Anyone who wishes to address the board on any closed session agenda item may be recognized at this time. In accordance with board bylaw 9323, individual speakers shall be allowed three minutes to address the board on each agenda item. The total time limit for public comment on each item is 20 minutes. Miss Parker, do we have any comments? Public comments. >> No. >> Okay. Thank you. Then item number four, it um we will move to recess to close session. And uh let me just read a little bit of the blurb here. Uh we will now the board will consider the following agendaized items. Item 4.1, [clears throat] conference with the legal council regarding
003existing litigation. Item 4.2, consideration of a liability claim number 04-25/26. Item 4.3, public employment elementary principal. And item 4.4, public employee appointment superintendent. We will now move into the um side chambers. Of course. [laughter] wanted to do. >> [music] [music] >> It's your time. This is your turn. Okay, I told this >> [music] [music] >> Good evening and welcome back. [snorts] I'm pleased to see the number of people in the audience this evening and I hope this will be a good meeting for you and I know that there's a lot going down and so stay tuned. We are reconvening to open session from uh our close session. Item 5.5 is the close session report regarding uh item 4.1. The board received an update from legal counsel on existing litigation and no reportable action was taken.
004Regarding item 4.2, 2. The board reviewed a liability claim number for 04-25/26. No reportable action was taken. Action on this item will be taken under um section 8.1 regarding 4.3 elementary principal. The board received information and no action was taken. Item 4.4 public employee appointment superintendent. The board received information regarding the employment contract for the new superintendent. Formal action is scheduled for the public portion of the meeting under item 8.5. Otherwise, no reportable action was taken during the close session discussion. Item 5.2, pledge of allegiance. Would Miss Tracy Lauren Morren Lawrence lead us in the pledge? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [snorts] Item number six is public comments. In
005accordance with government code section 54954.3, anyone who wishes to address the board on any item of interest to the public that is within the jurisdiction of the board may be recognized at this time. Matters not on the agenda may not be acted on by the board of trustees, but may be received and referred to staff or be placed on a subsequent board agenda for consideration. Items on the agenda may be addressed at the time agendaized in accordance with board bylaw 9323. Individual speakers shall be allowed three minutes to address the board on each agenda or non-aggenda item. The total time limit for public comment on each item is 20 minutes. I see that I have a speaker card. Do we have any additional speaker cards? >> Just the one. just the one. Well, I see
006that uh Mr. Kai Tanaka is the uh individual who is going to be speaking. So, if Kai would come forward and um introduce himself and uh tell us what's on his mind. Hello everyone. My name is Kai Tanaka and I am an incoming fifth grader at Vessels Elementary School. I would like to say thank you to our interim superintendent, Dr. McAllen, for all of your hard work and dedication you show to our school district. Thank you for helping bring to bring our school and the city of Cypress community back together and for spending so much time rebuilding relationships and important community and business partners like ACT and CSA. Most importantly, thank you for reminding everyone that the most important part of every decision made is about the students, including students like me. [snorts] Even before
007your first retirement, you were someone who always cared about stu students and staff and worked hard to make our schools even better. Even when you weren't always in the spotlight, the positive impact you made could be felt throughout the district and in our community. Thank you for your leadership, kindness, and commitment to our helping our schools succeed. We are grateful for everything you have done for our students, schools, and community. You will be deeply missed. your friend Kai. >> I'm gonna take a moment. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> You're off. I want a selfie with you, though. You ready? Oops. Got to do [clears throat] that. While these um pictures are being taken, I have insider information that there is a um there is a really close relationship between these two that is tied
008to candy. And so if you're interested in that story, uh I'm sure Kai or Dr. Mlullen would be glad to share what that connection is. Seeing no additional individuals uh wanting to speak under public comments, we'll move on in our agenda which is the next item is number seven which is the consent items. Consent items require one motion only. Items may be removed from the consent to be acted on individually at any board member's request. We have two items 7.1 and 7.2. Is there a motion to approve these items? >> So moved. >> Second. >> It's been moved by Trusty Need and seconded by Trusty Periq to move the uh consent items. Is there any discussion on any of these items? Seeing and hearing none, we will uh move to the vote. All in favor
009of approving the consent item 7.1 through 7.2 say I. I. >> All oppose. Same sign. >> Motion carried. We will now move on to our action items. 8.1 is consider liability claim number 4-25/26. Is there a motion to deny this liability claim? >> So moved. >> I second. It's been moved by trustee um Nem and seconded by trustee Tanaka to uh deny this liability claim. Is there any discussion? All in favor of denying this claim say I. I. >> I. >> All oppose. Same sign. Motion is carried. Item 8.2 Two is to hold a public hearing and adopt resolution number 25/26-17 to approve findings required for an energy services contract and entering into a design build contract with Wilden Energy Services. I will now open the public hearing to adopt resolution number 252627 memorializing this
010these findings. Mr. Fchaw, will you provide a presentation and overview of this item? We actually would like to give the presentation before the public hearing if that's okay. Dr. Sand, you got to close it, right? >> No, I don't. >> Okay. >> I mean, if you can open the public hearing, then this is there's a preface to the public comments. I think it'll be fine. >> Okay. Well, thank you, uh, President Sandi, members of the board, Dr. McClennon, and community. I have a brief presentation on uh the proposed solar project and the public hearing and the resolution uh that is before you this evening. Um and I want to uh thank uh our director of maintenance operations, transportation and technology, Theresa Lennox, who has um worked with me on this process. And then also recognize
011that Colton Corman from uh Wilden Energy Services is here in the audience in case there's any technical questions on the project that I am completely unable to answer. And with that still not just want to go to the next slide. Teresa So we have a bit of an overview. Um we're going to review the process of of how we got from uh to this point in the in the review of a of a potential solar project. Um talk a little bit about the scope of the project. Um what the projected costs and savings um of it would be and a little bit of understanding of the pros and cons of moving forward um before the board uh conducts the required public hearing and considers the resolution. So if we go to the next slide, it
012looks like I'm working. Okay. So, uh, in the fall, um, as we were talking about budget and and and increasing costs, um, both the budget advisory committee and then later with the governing board, um, there was a discussion recommendation to look at potential solar energy as a way to reduce utility costs going forward. Um, and so that was the beginning of our process to investigate that. Um, we met with Wildan Energy Services. um they came recommended to us um to do the begin the process of a nocost energy audit to determine the feasibility of solar power um and introducing um solar voltaic um structures to the district. Um they then worked over the next two months to provide us an energy audit showing what those potential savings might look like on a rough order of
013magnitude basis. Um and then we also learned about the the federal tax incentive uh investment credits uh which are an ex expiring program where the federal government would provide us up to 50% uh back of the cost um of the project. Um but it requires a very quick timeline of of spending uh 5% um of the project total um by July 3rd of uh next month. So by next month we have to spend um about 5% of the total. So it's a very quick timeline. Um at that time the board um agreed to move forward with continuing to look at this and and investing in the investment grade audit uh with Wildan to um further look at the design the scope um and get a better handle on the estimated cost. So they did bid
014walks with subcontractors and we did some additional looks at where these panels could be located in the most costefficient way. Um and they provided then a completed um audit and um scope to us. that is what you're considering tonight for approval. Um so what does the scope of the project look like? Uh you can see here illustrations of where um generally the panels would be on each of the six campuses uh with the exception of Luther. They would be in the parking lots um to provide um shade for uh the cars that were there at Luther. um given the configuration of the parking lot um it didn't pencil out so that they would be over the field um at Luther if that process moved forward. Um it would generate just under one megawatt of power
015generation. Um so it's a you know pretty healthy amount uh representing um I think about 60% of the demand that we have for um electricity at kind of that peak period. Um and um you know one of the things we wanted to point out is the number of sites may change as this process if the process moves forward um based on additional information that we would have about cost. So we we have a high water table um here. And so one of the things that we have to do is look at how far deep we'd have to drill for the moorings for these solar structures. And so we're assuming it could be as much as 50 feet um in these cost estimates that you're looking at to the extent it's deeper. that would be additional
016costs that would be incurring to the extent it's less that's that's savings. Um but we want to we in order to do that we have to do um further testing um and work with um different state agencies to get approvals on that. So that's a process that would have to move forward um through the planning process um and construction if we decide to move forward could start as early as next summer um assuming we get approval from the various again the various state agencies that are required for this process. So, in terms of costs, um we are looking at a construction cost including the purchase of the panels of about $10.2 million. And then there's an additional liquefaction zone cost an um uh contingency of about $2.4 million, bringing the total project cost to 12.6
017uh million, not to exceed cost. Um, in order to again qualify for the investment tax credits, um, we would need to purchase, uh, 5% of the project cost. We need to incur that before July 4th. Um, so the the plan would be to purchase all of the panels that would be needed for this project, uh, which is $936,000. Um so with if the board approved that tonight, we would move forward with um purchasing those um and getting that check cut uh before July 4th so that we would maintain the safe harbor um for that investment tax credit. Um these are um there were two ways that we can maintain our eligibility for the investment tax credit. The one that we're pursuing is is the safe harbor by purchasing the panels. The other would be to
018make sure the project was up and running before December 31st of 2027. um which is possible but it's a little riskier um because we don't know exactly how long the state agencies might take to review these how long um SoCal Edison might take to kind of let us flip the switch on them and make them operable. Uh so we just want to make sure if we want to pursue this that we're um in the safe harbor by purchasing the panels. Uh so we would have to finance that $1.6 million um for the rest of the project cost. Um, so we would have to come back at a future board meeting and talk about either a lease purchase or certificate of participation that would be backed by uh fund 40 revenues and and um deposits that
019we've made into fund 40 over the years. So that would be the way to fund the remainder of the project if this were to move forward. On the other side are savings. And so um we make are making pretty conservative assumptions here. We're assuming only a 4% um energy cost escalation per year. Um over the last uh 10 years, it's been closer to a 6%. But again, just to make sure we're using conservative estimates, we're assuming only a 4% energy cost escalation per year. We're also assuming that there's a degradation of the panels. So every year those panels are there. Um they produce a little bit less in the way of electricity. So they lose about half a percent uh per year. Um, we're also assuming the costs of maintaining and operating them and escalating
020those costs um, every year. Um, and we're assuming that there would be federal the federal IT andc incentives of about $5.4 million. Uh, so you can see the um, estimated savings from the energy would be about 16.8 u million. Uh, the debt service minus the fact that we would be fin uh, getting the tax incentives is about 8.5 million. Um there's the cost of maintaining them which over the 35 years which is about 950,000. So the estimated amount of savings over the 35 years is about $7.4 million. Um that's important because in order to do this project as a design build as an energy services contract um we have to do a public hearing and show that there's a savings greater than the project cost. Um and that allows us to do this contracting without
021doing a full public bidding process. allows us to um do a a procurement method uh with the design build that we're pursuing. So that's the reason why we're having the public hearing is in order to show the savings. Um this is completely unreadable. Um but if you were to look at it much closer on your screen, um it just kind of lays out the cash flow. Now it's it on my screen when I prepared this, it looked great. Um but it just didn't translate. So, I apologize, but it just highlights all those numbers that I was um talking about before in terms of um the amount of energy savings per year, um the amount of the incentives, the amount of the cost to financing it, and then what the net savings would be of about
022$7.4 million. You're just going have to trust me on that. Um pros and cons. I mean, this is this is a a decision that that the board um you know, we're bringing for the board to consider. Um, obviously the on the pro side, there's some long-term cost savings um to the district's general fund um by uh generating some of our own power. We'll still be on the grid. We'll still be buying power from SoCal Edison because there are times of the day where the sun doesn't shine and that we're still buying power during those times of the day. Um but, you know, it shows good environmental stewardship. Uh we are providing some shade um parking spaces as well as um play areas. Um it would also be supportive of future uh electric vehicle charging in
023the parking lots if we were to install that. Um but on the you know concerns or or you know potential cons um you know this could get more expensive with the liquefaction zone if we are determined that we need to go deeper um into the soil in order to put these moorings that is additional cost. Um it does commit fund 40 for a period of 10 to 20 years depending on the financing term. Um which potentially limits other facilities projects that we might have funded out of fund 40. Um so again we're trading off, you know, every everything we do there's a trade-off and so this becomes a trade-off that we're pursuing this and and maybe not something else that we might have done um with those uh facilities dollars. Um, you know, one of
024the other things we learned this year is that we um, fund 40 provides us some flexibility on the budgeting side um, in times of of need. And so this would also limit that ability um, in the future. And, you know, we're doing everything we can to um, make sure we're set up for those um, ITC incentives. Um, but there's always some level of uncertainty with the federal government, especially nowadays. Um and so we have to just keep that in mind um that we're doing everything we can to make sure we qualify for those very important incentives. Um but sometimes the federal government has a habit of doing things that we we least expect. So we just need to know that that's a a risk probably on the lower side. Um I'd say the riskier items
025are definitely the the um you know the the lack of of um flexibility that we would have with fund 40 potentially as well as the projects that we might not be able to do. Um on the other side again are the general fund savings from from the costs of of not buying as much electricity. So um next steps for the board um is to conduct the public hearing to hear any comments on um the energy savings aspect. Um and then you would close the public hearing and the resolution you have before you um basically sets the findings that the board finds that there are energy savings um from this project and um would then authorize us to enter into the contract which is also attached um withan energy services to move forward with the solar
026energy project. So that is all I have and I'd be happy to answer any questions. I think that we'll wait for um I think we'll wait for the discussion um when it comes back to the board if you don't mind. I do want to thank you for the um detailed rationale that you provided in the agenda. Also the uh full information that you provided in the um presentation this evening and that as a preface to this being a public hearing, it gives opportunity for the public to have had a little bit of uh greater input in terms of what this project is all about. So, is there anyone now that the public hearing is open, is there anyone who would like to speak to this item in the public hearing? Seeing none, I will close
027the public hearing and bring it back to the uh the board for discussion and ask the board. Um, one thing that I noted was is that, um, uh, what we need to do here is obviously put the this, um, um, on the floor. Put a motion on the floor. And so, uh, is there a motion to approve, uh, the contract with Wilden? >> So, moved. >> Second. >> Been moved by trustee Hayesa and seconded by Trusty Periq to u move this u uh, the to adopt the resolution number 2526-17. Um, now it is opportunity for the board to discuss and I just wanted to ask right up front. I know that we were advised that there were some updated documents that were different from the Friday posting and that are now included and I'm not
028sure that my fellow board members maybe had caught all of that. So, could you just give us just one little brief update on what those documents might have uh that that the essential changes or the updates? >> Sure. So exhibit two to the agenda item which is the design build contract with WDAN um was substantially complete but some of the exhibits were not yet available on Friday when we had to post it. So um the schedule of values um and some of the just the the later exhibits weren't quite ready. Um so I think that was all detailed um in the email that went out um in terms of what was missing. Um but substantially the contract itself is what was presented in the Friday uh agenda when we when we posted And I think
029the certificate of insurance was also not available at the time. So that was added as well. So apologies for um again trying to racing to the wire here a little bit to make sure we if we move forward with this that we have those tax credits available. >> Right. Absolutely understood. Uh just wanted to verify that the board was clear that there was some updates and it wasn't a substantive. It was just basically some exhibits. Uh now are there any questions from or uh comments or discussion from the board? I have a question. >> I do. And oh, >> just a minute. Go ahead. >> Trusty Trusty Hayashida. >> Okay. So, I have a question with regards to where the proposed um panels are at Luther. I don't know who to address. Um so, I
030know over by the preschool area, like where you have them right now, is there a specific reason why that spot was chosen? And if not, um I I believe to the left there's um like a fabric covering that for the current play area. Would something like this be a more permanent cover solution or do they need to be where they are? >> Teresa, >> just wanted to make sure. So the reason why we selected that location for a variety of reasons. Um one is where the switch gear is. So where the panels will connect to or is actually on the west side. That's actually why we also couldn't do it in the parking lot is because it was cost prohibitive. Um and then we also tried to be strategic of where we put it because
031panels come at an angle, right? Because they go for the the sun and we have balls and um handball courts and those types of things. And so we tried to put it in a location where we would minimize the risk of damage to the panels. Um, so those are the kind of the reasons why we chose play versus uh parking and that location. Did that answer the question? >> I think so. Because right now the ones at Luther are over a grassy area. >> Correct. >> So then will the students not be able to play in that area? >> No, they will be able to play. So we're looking as part of this process is we will it will provide shade for them like kind of the cloth shade structures. Um, but we'll be looking
032at what type of um underneath we want to have because obviously grass will die because it won't have, you know, the sunlight. So, we're looking at the different options that we might be able to put under there so that kids can still use that space. >> Okay. And so where the littles are, there's still all hazards. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Okay. Trusty Chanel. >> Perfect. Thank you, Larry. I appreciate all the detailed information on this. I know when President Sundi and I met with you prior to a lot of this starting this has come a long way. So, thank you so much for all your hard work and putting this together. Um, Teresa, I have a question. I know um Oh, sorry. I was told that if we
033put the solar panels in the parking lots, we now you would have to put the electric charging ports versus if you put the panels over the grass, you do not have to have the additional cost. But I noticed that a lot of these are now in the parking lots. Would it is that an additional cost that's driving it up or is it >> it's kind of minimal um for the run that would have to happen because all the switch gear is close to the parking lots and so except for the exception of Luther. And so that's what we did look at. We looked at shade structures versus parking lots and it was nominal in difference from the length of the run that you'd have to do versus um being close or you know not having
034to do the EV chargings. Um I had a long conversation with the division of state architect um in preparation for these projects which allowed us to um really uh limit the EV charging requirements to make it more cost um you know I was going to say prohibitive but that's the wrong word. Um just more cost effective. >> Okay, perfect. Thank you so much. >> Are there any other questions or comments? >> I have one more question. Um when we're looking at installing these I I don't know. Sorry, I don't know who to direct this question to. >> [laughter] >> You guys are both pointing this way. When we're looking at installing them, what are we looking at in terms of disruption to staff and students? >> The plan would be to do this over a
035summer or break time um period where uh we would have access to the campus. So that's why we talked about a summer um installation time period. >> So it wouldn't be an extended period of time where >> Yeah, we'll work on the timeline. If the board approves this, we'll work on a timeline for this, but the the goal would be to minimize disruption throughout the process. Thank you. >> Any other comments? Then I do have one question. I don't think it's a question. Maybe I'll just checking my mathematics. I was looking at the savings that are projected for this and there's a lot of assumptions that we're making regard this regarding financing and so forth over time and paying back that financing. But it appears that when you're talking about the uh the savings that
036uh we would uh realize a substantial annual savings on our electrical bills. could you just sort of bring us into the loop about what the approximate uh cost per year has been for electricity? >> So last year it was about a million dollars was our electric spend. Um so this I mean if we make all those assumptions and just do a simple average this is about 200,000 per year in savings >> and that's what I was that that my math matched yours. Uh so great I think I did okay and you did very well to pull that million dollars out of the hat. So in other words 20% we'd be we we'd have an approximately an immediate 20% if uh but we don't know in terms of the escalation in terms of rates across time
037uh whether and and how did you factor in the escalation rates across time? >> Sure. So um the historical over the last um I believe decade for um uh Southern California Edison is a 5.8% um escalation in terms of rates. Um we looked at what other um PG&E and SDG& so San Diego which is south of us and Pacific Gas and Electric which is north of us um they had closer to 7% rates. If you were to go back beyond the 10 years it's a closer to you know 4%. So we thought let's just be conservative for the point of you know this project and we don't want to over promise and underdel. Um so that's why we we looked at a 4% average. if it comes in closer to 6% the amount of the
038savings increases um substantially. So that's you know just just something we factored in there to um be as conservative as we can with these estimates. >> Okay. Then that's where my question my fundamental question that's where the math actually hits the rubber and that is is how can when we're talking about rates we're talking in terms of the increase in the cost of the electrical uh power per unit of measure measured and so if it increases at 4% then that is a uh a conservative figure. If it increases at 6% our costs go up. our costs go up, but the amount we're saving goes up as well because we're going to be saving more money by buy generating our own power than by buying that same power from um Southern California Edison. >> Okay. So,
039it still is going to average out obviously we're we're we're we're averaging it across the 35 years. Correct. >> So, yeah, it would increase the amount of savings when you increase the expected amount of escalation in the energy cost. So, it increases the amount of savings for us. So you say that there is a life on these panels of about 35 years. And what do we build in in terms of reinvestment and replacement of those panels so that at the end of 35 years we're not starting this process over again? >> Well, we are building in um repair and maintenance of the panels to the cost of about a million dollars over their lifetime. So, you know, one of the the most basic things you have to do is you have to wash them every
040couple months um to maintain the uh the amount of of power they generate. and you know the wiring gets loose and you have to go back and fix that. 35 years from now I don't know what solar power looks like. I don't know what the cells look like. Um I don't know that anybody does. So we'll see what we're using to generate power 35 years from now. >> These may be simply shade structures, right? >> Or or some other, you know, type of thing that we haven't thought of yet. Something that Kai Tanaka will think about um probably. >> Okay. >> Well, and and that's some of the concern I shared with you in the Friday report. I'm concerned about the commitment the fund 40 is going to be providing. If the board should elect
041to do this, um I'm worried about the priorities that you have in the facilities master plan. Uh that might not be able to be done or prioritized because of our commitment to solar. Um the board has um asked us to pursue and investigate, you know, the possibilities of solar and and I think that we do want to get to that place. I'm concerned about the timing right now and and uh what it will do to our fund 40 um as far as it being available for other projects that might be more important. Um I want to give um accolades to both um Larry and Teresa. They have spent a lot of time and I think it's coming through in the presentation and their ability to answer your questions in pursuing this um goal that the
042board has set. Um, however, I'm concerned about the risk and if it's the right time to pursue this. Um, one of the points of urgency is is getting the tax credits, of course. And I I I caution that that not be um the the trigger for us to do this, to feel like we have to meet that to get the tax credit. Um, and so that's why I wrote um and talked to you about my reservations and I just want to make sure that that's um thought about before the the board votes tonight. I'm glad that you brought that up because that that was going to be my next question that I wanted to ask uh Teresa and I know that we'll be doing a review of our master plan next month or um and
043uh I know that the last time that we had a review of the master plan we had a very um conservative um costing of repairs, maintenance, and what we could do over the next several years. And I think all of us were going, "Oh my gosh, this is a lot of money just for repairs and maintenance." And so, um, I kind of I kind of second what Dr. Mlullen is saying is this this sounds attractive to us, but is there any way that you could sort of address that if we went forward with this, what might be the immediate next the immediate impacts on uh the next couple of years as far as the master plan the um our master plan would be? >> Sure. So, um, as shared in last year's facilities master plan,
044most of our schools were modernized 10 to 15 years ago, right? Um, and so we're dealing with things like asphalt, HVAC, um, roofs that either weren't done at that time or are coming up to their end of life. And so I think you know uh even with the budget cuts that we had uh this year I already had to kind of scale down what we did in terms of asphalt and go say the best practice is three years for uh you know a seal and slurry. I went to four years just to try and make sure that we could balance out what we need to. So it will start affecting the facilities in that nature because we won't have the funds necessarily available for the things that are starting to break and the things that
045are starting we'll kind of get back almost to the same position where we were for before we did the modernizations right if we don't take the time to make sure that we're doing the little things once you know every year um if we're trying to do it all at once um it's it is going to have an effect. >> Does that generate any other questions from the board? Yeah, I have one more question with that concern. You know, I know the tax savings is about five million, right? We still got to figure out the other seven. When is our ROI? When's >> the break even point? >> So, on that page I shared with you that was really legible. Um, >> yeah, >> and that's why I'm sorry I I color the attractive colorful one,
046right? >> Yeah, the one that um I couldn't see either. Um, it's about 10 years. Um, basically that's be the length of the financing that we're projecting. It could be a 20-year financing. Um, but once the the financing is is paid off, then the project starts to be cash positive in terms of the savings on the the general fund start to um be there. So that's roughly 10 to 11 years depending again on interest rates in term of that. Uh we'll have to do more investigation. We'll work with our financial adviserss um to to further build that out. Um, we didn't want to try to do all of that at once um because we were just on a tight timeline to bring this to you to move forward if the board was wanting to do
047that. >> Any further questions? >> I I have a question. [clears throat] Um, is is the the is this projection based on all of the schools h needing to have the panels installed or um is there a way to take advantage of the tax credits without sort of doing a full scale all school project? Yes, we could do um fewer schools and and we've looked at four schools versus six schools as as alternatives. Um you know, reduces the amount that we have to pay, reduces the amount of savings proportionally as well. Um but there there might be a sweet spot where it produces more savings proportionally with fewer sites. Um, you know, one of the challenges was we weren't in a position yet to decide which those sites would be or not be and have
048a real good conversation with the board and the community about which sites we might remove and which sites we wouldn't. Um, so we brought forward all six sites within the contract. We always have the ability to um reduce that if you know, but we would have to reimburse Willan for any um planning costs that they might have made um to do that. Um we will also own enough panels for six sites uh once we purchase them. So we'll have to you know look at returning them or finding a secondary market for some panels that we have purchased. >> Okay. >> Is that is that a possibility returning them or finding somewhere else to buy them >> within the contract? If we change our minds within the first 30 days we can return them um with
049no restocking fee. After that, there is a restocking fee of I'm going to look at Colton 10%. 10% um restocking fee and um or we could, you know, see if our our good old panels um could get us um fair market price if we sold them to somebody else. >> Is I guess my next question would be is there anything if we if we purchased them if I'm understanding you correctly, it would have to be before July 4th. Is that correct? purchase. >> Yeah. So, the original federal investment tax credits were part of the infrastructure act from 2021 um to provide incentives for people to do energy type projects. Um HR1 or the one big beautiful bill act um ended that program um except if you um are safe harble the project by u making
050that 5% spend by July 4th of 2026. So, if we spent the money by July 4th, would we learn anything within 30 days more than what we know now in terms of being able to return them? >> Um, I mean, we could have 30 days is pretty tight timeline over the summer to make a decision on. Do we want to reduce the number of sites? Uh, we won't have any information yet on what the liquefaction zone issues are in terms of how deep or not deep we would need to go. Um, so we wouldn't have any more information there yet. So really, if we purchased them, if we approved the purchase, that would pretty much be a done deal. We wouldn't, we'd have to either pay the restocking or sell them off somewhere else. >>
051We'd be committed. >> And the the restocking fee is like 10% of the panel purchase fee, which is almost a million dollars. So, >> and whatever we send sell back or or restock right now, then we're >> Okay. It sounds like that um in some sense this this particular item is coming to us um still with considerable uncertainty uh and that the um immediacy is driven by um the deadline for the tax credits and uh if we didn't take advantage of the tax credits we are not going to get the cost savings associated with the tax credits. Therefore, any kind of cost savings over this project if we went forward with it, you know, four or five months, 10 months, two years down the road with the same figures, let's assume the figures were approximately
052the same, our cost savings over the 35 years would be substantially reduced. Is that correct? >> By the amount of the incentives that are not available, um, yes. I mean to the extent interest rates were lower that would be another way where the project might produce a little bit more savings because we're paying less to finance it. Um you know the other alternative might be other financing mechanisms like a potential general obligation bond down the line that would pay for this without being um a fund 40 type obligation. That would be another way the district could look at this in the future. That's a little um you know takes it out of the district's general fund or other funds. That would be a consideration too. >> Okay. I I apologize for asking this question because
053I my I can't get my computer connected and I didn't ask Teresa while everything was going on in terms of busyness. But um then uh the tax credits are representative of you said 5 million >> about 5.3 million. >> So our savings million our savings would be 7.4 over time. So if we didn't have the tax credits we would only have like a 2.2 million savings across time. So, I see that as a real downside for us moving forward with it right now with us having substantial uncertainty. So, I'm just going to put it that way in terms of my my perception of where we are. And so, I would like to ask um as we move forward on this item in terms of voting that if we are in favor, we are adopting the
054to move forward with signing the contract. If we're not in favor, we are putting it on the shelf for the time being. Is that a correct assumption? That's correct, President Sandi. So, any other comments? Yes. >> Yeah. So, I think you have it misstated because if the tax credits are 5,362,440, if we do not move forward, we lose that. >> Yes, that's what I was saying. Okay. So, so next, let's say we decide two years we're going to go through we're going to want to go through my my concern is we're pricing ourselves out of the game because that's $5.3 million that we didn't we don't have to worry about. But if we go next year or two years down the line, we're on the hook for the whole amount. >> That's correct. That's what
055I'm saying is I'm saying we would lose the advantage of that. In other words, our >> I thought you said we'd only get two million. No, across we would we would in terms of the two million the the the way it was presented was we would have like a 74 million uh 7.4 million savings across this contract. But if we don't get the 5.5 million of the tax credits that reduces the cost savings. >> Yeah. >> Pro provided that everything else remains the same. So meaning that all the work that you've done, all of the cost factors that have been presented to us tonight, if they remain the same and we didn't get the tax credit, then to move forward without the tax credits, does it make sense for us to do it? >> Yes.
056>> And that's essentially what I'm saying. Okay. >> Thank you. >> And what I'm saying is is that there appears to be enough uncertainty right now as to whether or not we want all part. And so if it's all part, if it's all, then we get that kind of savings. If it's part, we don't know what big a part or how small a part it is, but we're still obligated to purchase or we're going to purchase for all right now. And then we would have the secondary headache of what to do with the extra ones later. So the question really is, are we really ready to make a decision tonight? And that's >> and that's my my biggest concern. Um looking at this in isolation, all of the points that you're bringing up are are
057concerns by themselves. looking at this in greater context with our facilities master plan and other priorities that we might have um because we do have aging schools from their last modernization and we are starting to see more more um priorities come to the surface. So what you've just said is is a concern. My concern that adds to that is its relationship to other uh facilities concerns and and our fund 40 only able to do so much. >> Right. And that is exactly what I was the reason why we we we asked Teresa for that clarification on master's plan on the facilities master plan. Any other discussion? You feel comfortable ready to vote or do you want to have any additional discussion? Hey, I have a question. So, Teresa, when we're looking at the facilities master
058plan, I understand you were talking about having stretched things out, and the last time we we really looked at it, we did talk about needing to spend a significant amount of money. If we move forward with this, do you feel like the our master plan will take a substantial hit where we won't be able to update the things that that need to be done? I think it's a definite risk. Um I wouldn't say that it can't be done. As you know, I try to squeeze out every penny I can from from what we do and to to master plan it accordingly. Um but I think there is a risk because even if you remember from that facility's master plan, there was things that we didn't touch, right? We didn't touch uh doors, we didn't touch
059um EMS, we didn't touch HVC really. We just kind of did a highlight and that was even part of the original um overall amount. we were really focusing on asphalt roof and playground. Um and so um I do think there is a risk. >> So is that a low, medium, high risk? >> I would say medium. >> And you don't think that the savings over time outweighs um >> my alternative? >> Sorry, I didn't mean to. Um, I feel like we've done different things to help reduce our energy, i.e. the LED lights. Um, we have the EMS in all the modernized sites. So, um, you know, one of the things that was shared, uh, as we were going through this project, um, was the fact that our electricity use drops off at like 4:30. One,
060that has to do with EMS, but we don't have a lot of nighttime use, right? That's why they don't even look at batteries for this project. Um because there's no it's not a benefit to us. Um so I so I think in that sense um the the 200,000 I think to the general fund any savings is great in that sense but I don't think we haven't done some things to try and also mediate that cost. Um and so I think that's why I it's hard to weigh it right. And and I would say we've had lots of conversations because I think it's a great thing, but the the question is, is it the right time? And it's hard because of that timeline of that tax credit. And so that's why I'm I'm as I was
061even talking to you, right? It's it's middle of the road. I could go either way. Um because the pros and the cons are so heavily weighted each way. >> There's Sorry. Go ahead. Do you feel like there would be future incentives that I mean would this be it like one and done kind of thing or we potentially would have something come to us in the future where we'd get maybe these same tax credits? >> Not sure anybody's got a crystal ball. >> Yeah, but is that a possibility that it could come back around at a later time? >> I would make an educated political guess that nothing until 2029 at the earliest. What about um technology as far as um like we've come a long way since panels were first created, developed in your research,
062if you research it, like is there stuff on the horizon that as far as changes that might reduce the costs of a project like this? >> I think that's also a little bit of a crystal ball. I mean, obviously technology advances so quickly and I think that's one of the reasons uh why at the time the district chose not to do this earlier um was because the panels weren't necessarily quite there yet. They've come a long way and so I think that's why it was attractive for us to do this investigation. Um but technology is always changing and so you know most technology within five years is replaceable. Trusty Periq had a question and then I would advise that everyone that if we're if we're on the if we're on the cusp of not knowing
063what to do, uh I think the better part of decision-m would be to vote this item down. Um so, uh I'm I'm just going to put myself out there to suggest that I'm not going to vote for in favor it right now. I know that I've been a big proponent of us moving towards it. And I'd asked several years ago when we started seeing the um um this this the the panels going up around our communities and surrounding us and going, "Well, why aren't we doing this? Are there aren't there advantages? Aren't there savings?" And you know, the the the comment had always been that the timing isn't right. And um I I think that I do trust that reticence that uh staff has uh for us on this item that it might not pay
064off for us in the long run if we make a decision today to move forward when there is a lot at risk. And I would specifically say our facilities master plan is that risk that probably takes the biggest hit. Yes. some of the assumptions that we have as to, you know, I mean, the fact that we would lose the tax credits and whether or not tax credits would come around again or some other uh similar um uh incentive for us to do this uh may be out there. Uh we don't know. Uh I would be rather I would rather pass up this so-called opportunity right now for us to assure ourselves that we can at least maintain our facilities. And if any of you have been here uh and looked at the um the um
065uh renovations of any of the school facilities when they were renovated and go back to that time period and recognize that as you say not everything was done at those times. We brought them as as far forward as we could but they're all older buildings and there is going to be continuing to be maintenance and other kinds of considerations and concerns that we have. And as we've looked at that there was a when we were looking at the um sort of the balanced um projections for what the master plan was telling us that we needed to spend and then what we had to scale back this year and if this doesn't pan out the way we want we would have to scale back yet again. And so I'm really concerned about that and would think
066that um uh I would let my conservative uh genes come forward and suggest that I'm not going to vote for this. But uh obviously um you [clears throat and laughter] you have your opportunity to do so. Uh if there are no other questions, I do think that [clears throat] we need to move on with the vote and then move on with other items. >> I think you indicated that I have a >> Oh, yes. Go ahead. Um, I was basically going to essentially say what you said, which is I I feel like we're being asked to make make a decision based on um sort of uncertain information. Um, and I I don't know if there's like a >> Well, I think you're seeing our urgency and trying to get our heart is there. The district
067really wants to be in this solar world. Um, and so I give kudos again to Larry and Teresa for um, earnestly trying to figure out the best way to introduce solar to Cypress School District. And so what you you we're apologize we're putting you in this position, but we're we want to bring you the most information um, with the possibility of how this could be done. And it's a tough decision. Um, and I my concern is a lot what you've just echoed. It's the risk, the timing, and our priorities maybe being greater with other projects in the facilities master plan. Um, I think we'll get to solar someday here. Um, it's just a concern right now. So, we apologize. You are correct. Um, Trusty Periq. Um it's a tough spot that we've put you in,
068but we out of transparency wanted to bring this to you where we are because we are struggling right now um in in our dialogue and we're very appreciative to Wilden Energy Services for um helping us to get to this point. Um we're trying to look at how we can do it more than how we can't do it, but it it just feels like right now it's too much risk is my opinion. And I I don't I don't disagree. I think the couple things that and you've indicated how you would sort of go with this, but the couple things to keep in mind are with the facilities master plan, I don't think there are any other initiatives that we can take on really that come to mind that we would essentially receive a tax break for.
069Um unless I'm mistaken, I just I don't think that that's something that I I have heard of besides solar. Um, and if this is something that we're going to do, does it make sense to sort of have like a partial sort of approach and and let you investigate that and vote on, you know, vote on something like an additional investigation of sort to see if limiting the number of sites or if there's like a cap on the tax break that we receive to look at alternatives so we don't lose out on the tax break. Um, it just it feels it feels sort of I [clears throat] I don't want to lose that knowing knowing sort of the historical context of how these tax breaks in general have gone like for EVs and all that stuff,
070right? Like once they're gone, they're gone, like you said, like they're probably not going to come back. So, um, >> and here here's the thing, and I understand this because this is not >> a deduction. It's a credit. A tax credit is way better than a tax deduction. But in turn, I got to trust what my experts are saying, right? If it's a medium risk, is that something that we want to take on? Right? It's just it's that are we going to bank that you know because if we do not do it now that's not going to come back are we pricing ourselves out from going in the future but in turn I understand if we you know if there's something else that's going to come up we don't want to deplete fund 40 because
071we don't there's those unknown you don't know what's going to come up right and to me if if Teresa came back and said it's a low risk then that's a different story medium that's That's kind of hard, right? So it it to me I'm leaning to what President Sandi is saying >> and I think that um you know when there is so much uncertainty and I think we have to bring ourselves back to also the fact that we are in that budget cycle where we had to go to the county or the county came to you know we had to we had to use the county in terms of getting our budget in line and we're talking in terms of here as a risk factor that is associated with money yet again and if we
072are already struggling to get ourselves out of and we are looking better but based on a lot of work you have in the governor at this point but we're still not flush and so um I I that risk in terms of the facilities master plan is one risk the other risk is to our overall budgeting process and so that's my concern at this point as well >> can I just real quick from from Will down they they did offer to extend to three months the uh no restocking fee um option. So I just I know that was a question so I just wanted that was just brought to me. So so we would have three months to return them with no restocking fee as opposed to the one month that was previously in the part
073of the contract. And I know Magna was basically saying, you know, could we spend some more time to try to figure out um you know, partial versus full, but as you said, you know, if we're going to take advantage of the tax credits, uh that is up until July 4th and we don't really have the time to do that much investigation and our next board meeting is not until the 9th. >> Well, that would be my next question. Is would that is that advantageous for us in any way to have those three months? Are we going to learn anything in 3 months that we don't know right now? >> I think we would have some time to look at number of sites. I don't think in 3 months we would know the liquefaction issue yet.
074That's that's the one piece that we probably wouldn't know. Um because number one, we have the explorative digging that we would need to do, but then CGS, which is the California Geological Survey, I got it. um would need to review those and then tell us how deep we need to um drill to place those footings in the ground. So we wouldn't know that aspect I'm assuming within 3 months we would probably get have a better sense of number of sites within three months that we could recommend >> ju just to just to >> can we can we take take a recognitions rather than a free-for-all. I mean, if we could just sort of uh let people let come through go through me rather than everybody just sort of jumping in. Uh I I thought I
075heard Troy trying to make a comment just a second ago. >> No, I'm good. >> Okay, you're good. Okay, go ahead. Trusty Pere, go ahead. Thank you. Does um when you talk about the liquefaction zone cost, does that when you say you don't know what that is, does the cost differ on the assumption of the number of [snorts] feet or >> Yeah. So the the $2 millionish dollars um that we are assuming $2.4 million assumes 50 feet and that's based on Will Dan's experience with a district another district in Southern California. um we just don't know where we are and it can vary from sight to sight or within the same site um depending on on how far away you are how uh deep we would need to go. So that will all be part
076of the process of of working with Wildan and then CGS and then the division of the state architect to determine the level of depth that we need to go. >> I have one more question. >> Yes, thank you. Um, hearing everybody's input, does that knowing that we have three months, does that change your input at all or it's still the same amount of risk, still the same feedback? >> Well, no, the three months is is not for us to make the decision because >> No, I understand that. But if we if we purchase something right now and we have 3 months to return it versus one month, that gives us, you know, is that changing anything for your overall sort of recommendation? I hear that you guys are kind of saying you're on the fence,
077but that there is >> seemingly a little bit more on the risky side. Does the three months change anything to you? I think uh one way that might be answered is you're going to get a presentation in July on the facilities master plan. Um this may not answer your question, but you will see in greater context again all of the needs of the district as it relates to facilities. And and at that time you'll be able to weigh the priorities of solar versus everything else. and we miss out on the tax break. Um, but uh you'll probably see greater needs because we're into another year and our buildings get another year older. You may see greater needs start to come up in that presentation of the facilities master plan. Um, and our biggest challenge is
078how do we pay for the facilities up updates that we do need? and and you'll just see more of in relationship solar to everything else. >> So, if that's the case, because we're going to see that within 3 months, would it be advantageous for us to purchase now and essentially return once we have that presentation versus missing out completely? >> And I think you're hearing me say I don't think it's going to change. It's my opinion. I'm I'll let Teresa and Larry answer that question. I don't think our my recommendation would change. >> I think the only recommendation would might change in in that period of time is the number of sites. I think that would be where we might see um a discussion of you know maybe this site it doesn't pencil out as
079strongly as these other sites and so maybe instead of doing all six we do four reducing the overall cost. Um I I think some of the concerns about which what facilities projects we may or may not be able to do those those don't change. We may just have more information on what those are um or the priority. Um and then just the the flexibility with fund 40 that again you know came in very handy this fiscal year um you know that we we have some challenges um if that goes away. So that's that's really the part that we we are we're buying some time to continue to have those tax credits by purchasing the panels with the up to 90 days to return them at no cost um in terms of restocking fee. Um but
080some of the overall project things still remain. >> I think that might be advantageous for us to consider then going moving forward with the purchase if we have three months to get a little bit more information and it's not hurting us in any way. being able to have that flexibility when we have our meeting next month to have those conversations and know that we have that in our back back pocket if necessary and then maybe continue this conversation so that we're not missing out on those tax credits if the facilities master plan allows for that purchase. Uh Teresa, I believe, wants to do us a little bit of an update, but I would just like some clarification of what you're asking. The whole thing is is that tonight our approval of this particular resolution settles
081a contract and enables us then to move forward to buy um buy the panels. That means we have a contract with Wilden to do the project. three months has a possibility to uh give us the opportunity to um determine how many schools some part all um so I guess what I'm saying >> so that's tying us to some sort of financial obligation >> but it what what's here on the what's here to to to approve tonight >> is this resolution which is also a certain energy services [clears throat] agree agreement and construction that is to take place. So to approve this tonight, we're moving ourselves towards doing the project. We would know more information in 3 months potentially, but you can't in 3 months say, "Okay, fine. We're not going to do the project because
082we've already signed the contract." Is that correct? We have 30-day out clauses um within the contract um so that if you know we decided at any point in time um we we would be able to um end the contract and just pay basically what what we owe for the work done to date. >> So really the 90 days doesn't make any difference because we're still held to that 30-day out which brings us back to really not getting any more information. >> Let me play this out and make sure I I get this right. So, let's if if you were to approve this tonight, um in July, we hear [clears throat] about the facility's master plan and and some, you know, projects that can or can't happen. And then in August, the board has the option
083to um cancel or amend the contract. Um and there would be um no cost in terms of returning any or all of the panels. um there would be some level of cost reduction if we decided to scope out some of the um sites. Um and if we canceled the project entirely, there would be some out of pocket for whatever planning costs will might have done in that one to two month time period um that happened between when you approved it and when you um cancel the contract. So I just to play out that scenario in terms of what that could look like. Um, again, it's really just the idea is that it gives the district the safe harbor option if it's something we do choose to pursue at the end of that three-month window. Um,
084but again, some of those some of those risk concerns that we laid out don't change three months from now. Um, we just have more information in terms of what sites and its impact on the facility's master plan. Does that >> And does the fact that we have that the board meeting is more than 30 days out, the August board meeting, that really doesn't help us out then, right? >> The 30-day out would just mean we would say, you know, we're giving you notice that 30 days from now, this cancer contract is canled. Um, and so don't do anything else and send us a bill for the things that you've done to date. That's what a 30-day out essentially means on a contract. And I still want to defer to Teresa because she's sitting over there
085in the corner and we're head our heads are all turned this direction and she's not she's not waving her arms or making noises. So I'm just going to go ahead and and uh let you give some input. >> I was just going to answer the question for me in terms of the 30 or the 30 sorry 3 months. Does that make a difference? Um for me it doesn't in terms of the overall risk like I would still put that at medium risk. It does definitely give us more time to maybe give you guys more information so that you can feel more confident in whatever decision you make because I will have presented the facilities master plan and we'll know what budget is being attached to that. But the cost of the project is still the
086cost of the the project and that's going to hit the fund forward over the longevity because of the financing. So that's why I would still kind of put it at the same level even with that that three-month. >> Okay. Okay. And then I think Trusty Periq had another question and then we're going to follow up with Trusty Hayashida. And then I think that we need to make a decision as to what we want to do because we do want to finish our agenda tonight. >> We we do. Um I I was clearly not expecting to to to go this long, but um have we had any conversations with the city at all to see if this is a project that they could maybe >> and why would they do that? I I mean I I
087think that the city would have a vested interest in in um solar projects in general and >> I don't think we've explored anything with the city. We kind of look at this as an independent um entity pro or Cypress school district. It's something that could be explored and that can be an option. I think you still want to keep this in our facilities master plan as a goal for the district and maybe exploring a partnership with the city could be part of what we do in the year to come. Um I don't think we ignore that we need to get into the solar world and look at efficient ways um to use energy and to utilize energy. But uh um I don't we haven't we we had a opportunity to talk to the city just
088recently in our joint meeting and this wasn't one of the topics of course um they do want to partner with us. We're very lucky to have them um and that may be a viable option that we could pursue. >> Trustee. So with regards to the school sites, we have six plus we have here and um so and then Mott. So of all of the sites, are there certain sites that that have a greater like a significant amount greater than the others if we were to look at doing a couple versus none or six? >> Yes. Um, so, uh, that was kind of what Larry mentioned a little bit before was kind of the original look at four versus six. U, but we just didn't have the time to necessarily investigate that to the extent. But
089what, uh, Wilden did do is provide kind of that ratio of payback for lack of better terminology. And so, there were some, um, sites that were closer to like I'm going to say 20 year, which is kind of your golden um, where there were some sites that were closer to 30. Well, if the panels last 35 years, that's not necessarily as attractive, right? Um, so there is definitely a wide range based off of how much energy is used by that site and and how long is it used and those types of things. >> Okay, thank you. Um, and then I guess just for final input, it looking at the fact the state of our budget and then the state of the facilities. Um, as much as I would love solar, I think I'm inclined to
090agree that we should wait. Okay. Seeing no other active interest in further communication uh about this item, I will um uh ask um for us to do a vote on adopting resolution number 2526-27 memorializing certain findings and approving a certain energy services agreement for construction of energy conservation facilities. All in favor say I. So to be clear, I'm sorry. We're >> to vote for it. To say yes that you want to do it means we're committing ourselves to doing it. To say nay or I again for opposing means that we're not going to do it right now. >> I just wanted to make sure because I know we talked about going the other way first. >> Good clarification. >> So an I So an I vote means we're moving forward with the project. >> No
091vote is we are not doing going forward with the vote. But I do think that we're all still interested in uh continuing this as something that would be on our facilities master plan. >> Thank you. >> For the future. So now we're going to take a vote on this. So all in favor say I. >> All opposed. >> I. >> Anybody abstaining? >> Okay. Then the we this motion has been um uh failed. >> So we will not be doing the project right now. But I do want to express serious um uh appreciation to everybody who was a part of developing the data and the information. I think that that is a um a great uh piece of um material for us to use as a resource as we might plan going forward in the
092future. uh considering that uh potentially the um the the work that Wilden done has done may be somewhat dated maybe when we are ready to do it but hopefully that there is a substantial portion of what has been done can be utilized as a resource for our planning in the future. Going on to item 8.3 it is to adopt the 202627 local controlling accountability plan. Is there a motion to adopt this um 2627 LCAP? >> I move to adopt. >> I second. >> It's been moved by Trusty Tanaka and seconded by Trustee Hayashida to uh to approve to adopt the local control and accountability plan. Is there any discussion on this item? And again, there were updated revisions on this particular item that were noticed to us and I'm assuming that everybody saw those. Okay.
093Hearing no discussion, all in favor say I. I. >> All oppose. same sign. Okay, the motion is carried. 8.4 adopt the 2026 budget 27 budget. Is there a motion to adopt the budget for this next year? >> So moved. >> Second. >> It's been moved by trustee high and seconded by trustee Periq uh to adopt the Cypress District 2026 27 budget. Is there any discussion on this item? I would like to start off by basically thanking um Mr. Furchaw for all of the extensive updates and reporting and um over overcommunication if you will on the budget. I think that I'm very confident and comfortable with what's come before us tonight for us to move forward. So, I I think that that work, you know, has paid off and the work with the Orange County Department
094of Education has paid off and I just want to say thank you very much for all of that hard work and additionally all the other staff who participated in any part of the input that brought us to the point where we have a budget to actually approve. Any other comments? >> I just got one question. Uh, thank you so much, uh, Larry, for putting all this together. under page 14 under planned actions. I know we're doing a lot to um try to see what we can do to minimize these costs. I saw a lot of the information and actions that we proposed. So, thank you for taking care of that. One thing is a reduction in materials and supplies. I did see that uh under page 14 for 100,000. So, you know, is there a
095way we could look to try to reduce bring that take that back and then find another way that we can try to do that? I just know so many of the teachers, the staff, they come out of their pocket so much. I just feel taking another 100,000 out and then that's basically 16K from every school, right? to look at six of the schools, you know, that's going to tell them even more that they can't do this and they're coming out of their pocket even more just if we could just look at that potentially to try to see what we can do. >> Yeah. And and materials and supplies is not exclusive to the site budgets. Um this is districtwide. This is um you know the amount of materials we buy Vermont, the amount of materials
096we buy in business services, the amount of paper we might use. So it's it's really a district-wide um not just at the school sites level. Um and and we're seeing that um you know just in I want to say sometimes the awareness of the budget situation uh leads to some reductions in spending on its own. So the amounts we're seeing so far for this year to date are below what we budgeted and so if we just hit those numbers we will have achieved um that savings um in future years. So um you know we're working on that and you know some of the the savings will also just be because of declining enrollment. We have fewer students. we allocate an amount per student and so that will just result in in less spending as well.
097So, um it's something we're sensitive to. We want to make sure our teachers and students have the supplies they need. Um but we just have to monitor the budget as well. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Any further discussion about the budget tonight? >> Then all in favor of approving the adopting the Cypress School District 2026 27 budget say I. >> I. >> All oppose. Same sign. Then our budget has been approved for this next year. The last item on our agenda, well, no, it's not the last item. Feels like it should be the last item. Uh 8.5 is to approve the appointment and employment contract for new district superintendent. Um I do have a um readout. Is this the time to do the readout? Okay. I tried to put together a readout, but
098there are many more paragraphs that have been handed to me that by code I have to uh do as a formal readout. Government code sections 53262 and 54953 C3 require the board to ratify executive employment contracts in open session and summon summarize the compensation infringe can't speak now infringe benefits to be paid prior to taking final action under the proposed appointment and employment contract for Dr. Grant Liten as permanent superintendent which is agenda item 8.5. Dr. Litin would have a contract term of three years commencing July 1, 2026 and ending June 30th, 2029. This contract would be extended for additional years based on a satisfactory evaluation so long as the extended term not exceed three years. The superintendent's annual salary would be $266,000 uh.71. The salary represents a placement on step one of the superintendent
099salary schedule composed of three steps. In addition, Dr. Litin would receive any across the board salary increases provided to the district certificated management team. Dr. Litman's work year would be 216 days exclusive of 30 days vacation as well as 15 district recognized holidays equating to a total of 261 days. He would also be entitled to the same health and other fringe benefits provided to district certificated management employees. A copy of the proposed employment contract for Dr. Litin is available upon request. Then uh before us then is a um uh >> a roll call vote. >> Well, do we have a motion on the floor yet? >> Correct. I just I was just >> Okay. Okay. That's is the uh is there a motion to approve Dr. Litman's appointment and employment contract to serve as >>
100So moved. second >> to serve as the Cypress School District's next superintendent. It's been moved by Trustee Tanaka and seconded by Trustee Hayashida. Is there any open discussion on this item? I would like to [cough] begin by just making a couple of comments. I want to begin uh and and this is not directly about the appointment, but it's about the process. I would like to begin by thanking this board for the many hours of deliberation and uh deep engagement as well as thoughtful consideration that we have engaged in throughout this whole process to get to this point and I believe that collectively we've done an incredible job. I also want to acknowledge the work of our search firm ELS. They assisted the board by facilitating focus groups, conducting face-to-face conversations across our school sites, holding
101individual interviews, and administrating the uh administering the community survey. The data and feedback collected from these sessions was invaluable in developing the superintendent profile. Lastly, I would like to express the board's collective appreciation to all of our stakeholders. Thank you to everyone who reached out to us or participated in the input sessions. Your thoughtfulness and detailed feedback truly shaped this process. >> Do any of my fellow uh board members have any comments? >> I do. >> Okay. >> This is not regarding the the appointment. It's just the process and wanting to say thank you. You know, it's been a privilege to serve alongside you during the last important chapter of our district's history. You know, Dr. Mcllen, thank you for your leadership, your guidance, unwavering commitment to the schools in our community. Your service has
102made a lasting and meaningful difference and the city of Cypress is deeply grateful for your many contributions. Thank you. >> I would just like to say resonate the same and we're so glad that you came back when you did. we really did need you then and I think it was such a pivotal time in the district and um I'm looking forward to um just the next chapter and so thank you for what you did and um enjoy your re-retirement but don't go far because we still want you to to to hang around for as long as you can and welcome >> welcome I I want to just say ditto, but um yeah, thank you. >> Thank you. [laughter] >> I know I kind of stole it from you. Thank you so much for for everything
103you've you've done. Um I I I don't say this lightly, but you've completely um you've raised the bar. You've changed the tenor. you've fixed and healed and and done much more than I think any you know singular person could have in the short amount of time that you've um held this role. So um thank you for coming back um Tim number two um and welcome um we're we're happy to to have you and we're looking forward to to working with you as well. >> Okay. Well, that sounds like we're ready. The stage is set for us to take a vote on uh approving Dr. Litman's appointment and employment contract. Um all in favor say I. >> I. >> All oppose. Same sign. >> Okay. It looks like the motion has carried and I am just
104>> Does it have to be a roll call? >> Oh, it does it have to be a roll call? >> It does need to be a roll call. >> Okay. I knew you said that and I knew I was going to ask you that, but >> I was with you. >> There you go. Well, I've got too many places to read from. >> Sorry. Uh Miss Parker. Trusty Hayashida. >> Yay. >> Trusty Nem. >> Yes. >> Trusty Periq. >> Yes. >> Trusty Sandi. >> Hi. >> Trusty Danaka. >> Yes. >> Okay. [cough] Motion has carried. Um I'm just going to make a brief statement before we introduce >> Oh, she's on it. >> Just before we introduce uh Dr. Liten uh for to the audience. I know that um the district is uh going to
105uh has a um press release that is imminently going to go out and I'm not going to read from it. I'm going to read from my particular notes. I know that uh um notes were brought uh forward to me to potentially read and I'm just going to start this process by saying that um Dr. Lipin brings an abundance of proven leadership from his time as assistant superintendent in Tustin Unified. His deep understanding of Orange County education, combined with his dedication to building modern, equitable learning environments, directly aligns with our district's vision. Throughout his career, he has demonstrated a strong commitment to transparency and student- centered collaboration, making him uniquely equipped to guide [cough] Cypress towards a bright future. While we reviewed many highly qualified candidates, Dr. Litman stood out as the absolute best match for
106our district at this point in time. With that said, it is now my honored and privilege to introduce our new superintendent. is joined tonight by his wife Brandy. Right. Correct. I thought I got to get that and >> his partner in life >> who is a fellow educator and uh she has come to support him for this very special evening and I would like everyone in the audience as well as us on the dis to welcome Dr. Liten to uh our district uh and that we consider this to be your next home, the Cypress community. And we are thrilled to have you with us. And we'd like if you want to to provide a few remarks. [applause] >> Well, thank you very much. Really appreciate this opportunity. Sorry, you just need to push the button
107on your mic. >> Okay, there we go. Sorry, I'm pushing buttons already. All right, thank you so much uh for this opportunity to come here to Cypress uh to be on your team and and help lead this next next phase. Um and I I know it's going to be great. I'm super excited about the opportunity. Like I said, the Dr. Mlen, thank you for uh kind of filling the gap here and and coming back and stabilizing things and um I know uh your support's going to be tremendous too moving forward. Uh looking forward to working with the staff and the board uh to continue making this a great place to go to school. So, thank you so much. >> Thank you. Item number nine is information discussion. 9.1 is the first reading of updated board
108policies, administrative regulations, [cough] and board bylaws. Are there any questions or comments regarding this item from any members of the board? I would note that there are approximately 20 items that are updated and uh I would like to ask Miss Parker to uh let me know whether or not she you you you figured out how to Okay, I had some I had some questions this afternoon and she was saying, "Well, what's posted doesn't look like anything that's on my screen." So, I think that you she's you're going to continue to try to figure out how we can make sure that we understand uh sidebyside um changes that are in the uh in the different board policies and regulations. >> I think I counted 43, >> but they're duplicates. >> Oh, they're they're they're duplicate. Many
109of them are duplicates. I mean, they're not duplicates, but they are parallel language. They're parallel docu They're parallel bylaw regulations. And this is a first reading. If there are questions that you have, any of the board um >> if with any of the board policies, um shoot them our way and we'll do our best to answer any questions you have. >> Well, I just wanted to thank Debbie for Oh. >> uh for for answering my questions and walking me through trying to figure out what does what does peach color stand for? What does blue color stand for? Because I was trying to read them. She says, "Just put your cursor over it and it tells you what it and I'm going, "Oh, >> isn't technology great?" >> But thank you. >> Very happy to help.
110>> Yeah. Thank you. >> If there are no other um if there are no other items uh before us, the then we will um uh the meeting will now stand adjourned and our next regular meeting will be July 9th, 2026. And I would encourage you to please stay and um introduce yourself to Mr. Litin and um welcome him to our district.