April 27, 2026, Special Called Board of Education Meeting.

001Afternoon. We will now call this meeting to order at 12:01 p.m. The purpose of this special call meeting is to discuss three items. Archaeological monitoring, Senate Bill 625, and the new Early Learning Center and Decar High School expansion project scope. The chair appoints council from Wilson Morton and Downs as parliamentarian for this meeting to advise on parliamentary procedure as needed. We will start with a roll call for the record. I am chair Dr. Carmen Sultan and I am present. When I call your name, please indicate if you are present. Vice >> present. >> Board member Anderson >> present. >> Board member Hearnen not yet present. Board member >> present. >> All righty. The first item is archaeological monitoring. All right. Um, the recommendation is that the board authorize the superintendent to retain an archaeologist to

002monitor the ECLC project. Um, so the motion is that I move that the superintendent retain an archaeologist to monitor the ECLC project. >> I have to say one thing. >> Second. >> Okay, that's a second. Is there any discussion? >> I have discussion. Um, so I specifically ask that we report a phase one archeological survey which is the standard due diligence before construction begins. This archaeological monitoring is different. It's not new construction active, not preventative. And that's why we had the special call meeting. So, we've had the offer from the local community to do an archaeological phase one survey with minimal cost. I think most of it is free, maybe a few hundred. I think I understood it's worth $40,000. And now we're talking about monitoring, which is totally different. It's something that's incorporated into

003the construction space. So, I'm a little bit confused why we're shifting kind of the goal post here. Yeah, I'd like to understand that too because um I don't know a lot of archaeology. So I was looking it up to see what is the difference and the monitoring sounds like I think to your point Lorine I reactionary process and something driven more by I want to build here and I just have to make sure that I don't do anything and so can I understand from whoever's recommended the monitoring why the recommendation is monitoring. I think I think it's the uh I think it's what the ordinance says with the city. Am I correct on that? That there is an ordinance um HBC ordinance around monitoring for projects in the historic area. >> So then we're just

004following the letter of the law. It's not necessarily I mean I I thought there was a difference between as a body what we could choose to do versus what the city requires us to do. So I can appreciate why we're doing the monitoring if the city's requiring it. I guess I want to know why anyone wouldn't want to do something that would be more protective, especially since now we do have the HCC and the more I'm reading and learning and the more kind of experiential the learning could be. Like it sounds like a pretty cool opportunity for our students in our school district. >> I have a lot of concerns about having students involved here. Um, I think if there are I I think if we're going to have students involved, there needs to be

005a process in place as to how they >> Sorry. Can I clarify? I by no means was proposing that students were doing it. I'm simply saying that I think pursuing this would allow students to learn from it. So, to be clear, I'm not recommending until I know more and it's presented that students do it. I'm simply saying there's a really neat way to learn about history that seems to be somewhat unusual. I'm not aware of many school districts that get this opportunity. >> And just to follow up, uh when we, you know, I proposed this motion, it was to reach out to the archaeologist, I think, who's here today to follow up and really get some more facts on the extent of the archaeological survey so that we could answer these questions related to student

006involvement. Um, and from what I understand, because I was able to reach her on Friday evening since no one from the pool did, um, just to make sure I had enough facts to understand that this would only take maybe two weekends. Um, she has a lot of contact with Georgia State and others to organize it. I think we only have one chance to do this because once we start construction, it's done. um monitoring is just somebody there from what I understand in that conversation that they're watching to see if there's anything um served and if we do find you know human remains that would halt things. So this is kind of more preventative from what I understand than um you know just monitoring it during the construction process which it seems like is a new

007piece of information. I I just learned that the HPC is requiring that for the land to surface agreement. So I don't know totally different. >> I don't know if they're requiring it for the I don't know if it's a requirement. I think it was part I think it was part of their suggestion. I think that >> um what we what I am hearing here is that this would be that the superintendent has an archaeologist that would encompass this work. Um, that is what I'm that the superintendent would hire an archaeologist that would encompass this work that would report to the district to do this particular work. Now, I think all of the details of how particular facts are harvested, how they're held, that part still remains blurry to not here to pass a referendum on

008whether or not the work should be done. I do think that remain a or some parts of the proposal are a little bit um are a little bit fuzzy to me who ultimately is responsible for the artifacts if they find them. Is it us? Is it the city? The cost remains a little bit nebulous. Um so I think what I'm hearing here is that um the superintendent would be responsible per per the feedback that we got from the historic preservation committee. um we would hire an archaeologist to do the work that we're being asked to do. Um but that that particular person would report to this particular work. Is do I have that right Dr. Whitaker or would you like to chime in? >> Yes. So this would be a phase one a survey um

009is what I think the first the actual first step >> and so the ordinance and I'm going to ask um Mr. the mouse to pull the ordinance up. Um, which is where the language of the item came from because it that's what's on the ordinance. Um, if you would, Mr. Min, pull the ordinance app. >> May I ask a question while we're waiting for Mr. Melton to pull that up because I want to make sure we're clear since obviously we're having a discussion. We don't have slides. So when I choosing or discussing monitoring, I think the first response is the ordinance requires us. So if the ordinance requires us, then why do we even need to discuss it? Because it sounds like they're really two different things going on. And I just want to make

010sure that not only I but anyone listening understands the difference between choice and requirement. because if it's a requirement then I just don't understand why the board even has to. >> So um Jody Campbell outside council Campbell uh I've been representing the school district in front of the HBC a couple of different layers to answering your question. Um as a legal matter I have serious doubts about whether or not we are required to comply with this ordinance. I think there are a number of legal arguments that can be made and I think that our could very well and are likely to prevail that says school district is not bound by the ordinance that was adopted and in fact I'll quote the actual outside council and the city commission themselves who said as much when they

011adopted this because our applications were already in the door we are entitled to the benefit of the regulatory framework that existed before this was adopted so um I I don't want anyone to feel like we're under legal compulsion to do this and as As a result of that, I do think it's appropriate that the the board vote because I think we're voluntarily agreeing to the monitoring, not out of any kind of legal compulsion to do so. That I think is the answer to your question, >> but I think it's but I think to your point where member is something that we should do. Um the question is um how it gets done. Um but I think that what we're saying here is that this should this is we should do it. Um but >> great.

012I'm glad to hear that. Um but again I guess I just want clarification or confirmation that this is an archaeological phase one survey because from what I understand you know when we agreed to this you all agreed to this motion um it was to reach out to the offer that we had in the community um that looks wonderful pro bono um again we can work out the details to do some fact gathering so that we could make an informed decision and I don't know if that has happened >> I don't support uh reaching out to uh someone in the community that's offering a program. I would rather us go through a measured process to select a vendor that can provide these services for us appropriately that does report to the administration. So, I'd like to

013ask a few questions about that and um I'm sorry to all the arborists out there and all the psychologists out there, but um when we have had our trees assessed at our house, I don't want the person who can conceivably profit from telling me I need to cut down the tree to be the person we're so pointedly sought out just an arborist, not someone who would end up mitigating or managing any of the trees. Similarly with my daughter, hope you're okay with me sharing this um when she was younger and it was determined that she might need an assessment. Um I wanted to use a clinical uh went to Emery. So that therefore there was no um perceived conflict of interest or benefit from the person that would be providing those services. I knew nothing

014about how archaeology surveys work, but who would be responsible for finding in settings. um the people involved so that similar to when I do my own stuff, I'm getting the most dispassionate um assessment possible. Do we know? >> Uh I I would agree. Um you know, uh one of the things uh I would say is very near and dear to my heart is probably the African diaspora. As a person who has a degree in African-American studies from the University of Pennsylvania, I do believe that you must do your due diligence and and also to board member Irriier's point, I think it does begin with a phase 1A and then if you need to move forward then you would but start with the phase 1 A but once Again, I would I would think you would

015want to employ someone because if you scroll down just a little bit more, Mr. Melton. Okay. Yes. So, here it it talks about and so that's where I think you should employ um for the >> monitoring again. I guess >> maybe you've gotten more information on this. What is a phase 1 A? That's the first time I'm hearing that. It sounds like it's different than what we've been offered related to a phase one survey. >> Phase 1A investigation is assessing the likelihood of intact archaeological resources, identifying historically documented features within a project area, evaluating the extent of modern disturbance. Um, and that's something to think about because that land did have there and providing what would be clear actionable recommendations for if you would need a phase 1B, which would be subsurface testing. So phase

0161A is the beginning of that investigation, if you will. >> Does that include the shovel test that's been offered? Well, I think you have to it's do the first part and then if it's necessary, you do the second part and then if it's necessary, you do the third. It it it's >> it builds on one on the other. >> But I also think, you know, in reading this I, you know, whatever you find, somebody has to be responsible for the the data. And I think that's maybe where Dr. Dr. Wicker is saying have somebody who's employed um that report to the administration might be the way to go. Then I don't think the argument here is whether or not we should do it. I think you know he was he was saying that if you

017look at the legal language it's not we don't have to but we are staying in good faith. >> Wonderful. I'm glad to hear that. And having a person that is employed properly means that we have line of custody or for anything that might be found and we have a process in place or we're going to put that in place presumably for if something is discovered what do we do and how do we right >> ensure that it's preserved appropriately. >> Right. And to clarify my point earlier I don't have any problem with students benefiting from educational opportunity here. I think it was always very unclear how students would actually be ingrained in the work. um would they be supervised by parents? Would they be supervised by teachers? Where would the liability be if some somebody

018were to injure themselves? And I think if we have a little bit more of an organized process as to how this gets implemented, I think we would all question. >> Yeah. >> So might be asking the same question. So we're would be one need to close out what would be this motion and then change the motion to be a phase 1A assessment. Um >> same as a phase 1 a survey >> I need a clarification and forgive me if I should already know it but who ultimately is responsible for finding the archaeologists? Will it be the construction company recommending archaeologists? No, I think that has to be on the administration really. I mean, but to your point, I think that that work that's done like this we it's it shouldn't be done by the construction

019company should keep that. >> How would that be determined so that doesn't inadvertently happen? Like it's nice that we're saying, how does that work process-wise so it doesn't end up happening? So that the construction company doesn't hire the >> Well, no, we're hiring. But who's re then? What is that process like? So we don't inadvertently end up getting an archaeologist only because that's who the construction company recommended. >> I think we tell the administration that we don't want an archaeologist recommended by the construction company. Like we we need to know that this is an independent third party. Yeah. Like that's the expectation. And and as I said, I think um so the just sc I'm sorry I keep telling you to scroll just just maybe a sentence above the practice. Oh, it went away. Okay.

020Uh okay, perfect. So B talks about the uses of its legacy AfricanAmerican community. And so one of the criteria that would be needed I think for this you would need to have someone who is familiar with and has expertise in the AfricanAmerican community as far as the archaeology side. So that that's an example. >> So we need to update the motion. Was that what was that was what was said? So, we need to make a motion to >> do I need to withdraw the first motion? >> Yeah, I have to withdraw my second and then withdraw the first motion. >> Withdraw the first motion. I'm sorry. >> Yes. >> Can actually make a friendly amendment to the motion to change the word monitoring to phase 1A study. >> Okay. >> And then second. >> Okay.

021So I will make a friendly a movement amendment to change from monitoring wait >> monitoring to phase one >> a study >> survey phase one a survey >> second >> all right any further discussion >> I'm also just wondering because I think when I made the motion at the last meeting that to what extent you know going to the African American community help elders that we had discussed reaching out and talking to them. So I don't collaboration >> they have to be willing to talk to us. I mean that's the long and short of it right. >> Yeah. I guess I do need to add one thing and I'm not sure if this will be for another topic so y'all can correct me but I have the placemaking design and heritage design um perspectives from

022February 2025. So I'm just wondering since I was trying to self-e um regarding all things kind of placemaking um archaeology and historic preservation. So is there anything that we need to do now specific to this place making if we are already pursuing now aology discovery for lack of a better word correct me if I'm wrong um but this predates both the historic preservation um commission um discussions and our archaeology discussions >> sorry you you suggesting that we update that or that we we allow it to incorporate anything that might come out of the survey. >> Yeah. Or perhaps revisit the approach from the outset if this predates all things history that we now have. >> Okay. >> All right. Okay. So the pending motion is to authorize the superintendent to retain an archaeologist for phase

023one a survey for the ECLC project. Um board members uh when your name is called please respond with I if you are in favor no if you are opposed or abstain if you wish to remain neutral. Dr. Whitaker please proceed. >> Sharer Sultan >> I vice chairs >> I. >> Board member Anderson. >> Hi. Board member Hearnen. >> Hi. >> Board member. >> Hi. >> Sheriff Sultan. The tally stands with five eyes, zero nos, and zero abstain. The eyes have it and the motion is. >> Thank you. The eyes have it. Uh, the motion is carried. All right. The second agenda item is Senate Bill 625. And the recommendation is that the board authorize the board chair to sign and send a letter to the governor seeking a veto on Senate Bill 625. So I

024chair Soulen sign and send a letter to Governor Kemp requesting that he veto Senate Bill 625. >> Chair second. Chair Uts second. Is there any discussion? Yes. Yes, ma'am. >> Um, this really is about governance, accountability, and public trust. To me, the Georgia General Assembly, you know, created PFA. And if the legislature created those authorities, I think they have the right to set guard rails as they've done with SB 625. This bill doesn't stop the project. It just requires public input on this large financial commitment. Um, I'm still confused if you know we're talking about renovations, which maybe is the next talking point, but I think that, you know, this is an overreach in my mind. The legislature truck structures the public finance all the time and this doesn't present projects. I think really it's

025about strengthening a vote, you know, for public trust and letting the public to weigh in. So, I don't agree with lobbying for the veto. Uh, I would be amendable to that interpretation if the legislation was targeted against any use of the PFA, but it is not. It is targeted specifically against this school system and this project. And so, had that legislation been drafted in such a way that it required any project funded through the PSA to go through this process had it hit thresholds, then I I think that that is probably a reasonable interpretation. But the fact that the legislation is solely, wholly, and only targeted at this particular project for this district makes me believe that it is definitively overreaching. >> And I'd like to share that I think when it comes to governance,

026we can't cherrypick which parts we follow. And so the legislator specifically cited the transparency of decision-making process and the lack of meaningful community input regarding cost, scope, and location. uh board policies BAB and BBA would be two governance policies that perhaps we could have um heated. Uh, one has to do with our theory of action, family and community engagement and involvement. Not simply citing a minute and a half or two minutes uh March 2024 or May 2024 that we either have the ECLC in I think it was called the state of operations in March 2024. I relisted to it this morning. It was all of two minutes in May 2024 because I relisted to that meeting twice. I believe it was about a minute that the early childhood learning center was announced. That was also

027when the strategic plan was updated, the very strategic plan updated. We as a governance team identified in February 2026 that we had not reopted. Additionally, the very charter, if we're going to talk about governance and what people should do, allows for us to have innovations in lie of waving particular laws and policies. So with regard to this charter, we appear to have used this mechanism to justify building the building. But at the same time, we seem to have ignored the other part of the charter, which specifically includes a governance decision making matrix with our school leadership team and our FDLT. And I have the charter right here. And this is, I believe, the original one and then we amended it. I believe it was on a consent agenda in November 2024. So, you have got

028to go to the state's website. Unfortunately, our district website doesn't appear to publish this anywhere, but what it specifically says that it at least annually and as needed, the SCP members provide feedback on district level budget and provides feedback to the board. It also explains that the SL SPT will review and provide feedback on the five-year strategic plan. And that is a strategic plan that we did not annually update. So I take serious issue with the idea that anyone on this governance team would claim that governance works here and therefore we voted for this and the legislators then are overstepping. Finally, if I am wrong, please correct me, but I looked up the cost of Legacy Park, which I believe some legislators have said was the origin of this for Decator. Now, this is just

029Google, but I believe it said it was 7 million. The PSA bond uh approved by three of the five board members was for about 50 million and I believe 50 million is almost half of our budget. Thank you. Now I also worry, you know, would think that if this project is strong enough, I know if we believe that there's a silent majority who endorse it, then we shouldn't be afraid of the public weighing in on this. That's how we ensure transparency and that's how we maintain public trust. To me, it's just about democracy full stop. >> I think both of you have proven the point that this is this particular piece of legislation does target this particular project. And I think even if this was not a project that I was passionate about about, I've

030been vocal about it. I put it when I was running for reelection that I support this this particular project and what it's standing for. This is just a a piece of legislation that I think sets a bad precedent for other school boards. Um even if it was something that I was opposed to, um projects that are controversial that come across the desk of other school boards. Um but feeling that um then they go up for a referendum I think is a dangerous precedent. Also um we had advice from independent council that told us how told us that exact same thing. Um I also want to clarify board member Arrier's point. This is a letter. This is not us seeking a to lobby. It is a letter that I would sign that would go to the

031governor's desk. But this is not extra resources in the form of a lobbyist. And I think that point needs to be clarified as well. But this particular piece of legislation does in fact target this project. Um it says it right there. Um so even if this was a project that I didn't feel as passionately about as I do, um I would still think that um this was not the way to go. It is not a good president for other school boards. >> I think that it doesn't target the building. >> It says that it targets the management of this project because it says so in the title. We unfortunately, and I hope not intentionally, appear to have cut out most of the people. I've been here since it was announced that August, I already said

032this at the last meeting, we had already had one past session. And so I find it particularly concerning that the very government mechanisms that allow us to, for example, according to the 2425 charter, what we did was reallocate our charter funds to support the ECLC in the FY26 budget effectively allows us to do things. But unfortunately, we don't appear to want to heed the other things that the charter requires and invites. >> Good question. How do you respond to the judge's rulings that all of that is incorrect and very strong language? Um, and then two, what does that have to do with whether or not this is an overstep by the legislature or not? I've hear a lot of talk about democracy. We've got great council. There's a $33 million Legacy Park PFA to reinvest

033and buy back some debt. They authorized it for that number. The title of this bill is Legacy Park. We had a meeting with them where they said, "We're just hearing a lot from powerful people that they don't like this project, so we're putting this in right." So, first, I'd like an answer to the judge question explicitly. And then two, I would like to know how you can honestly say this isn't about the ECLC given that you've sat there with me. >> Okay. So the first question I believe you said is all of that and my understanding of the judge's ruling was simply the fact that there was a public vote in October. My understanding of what the judge ruled on was and I believe that is what Mr. Campbell talked about when we had the

034meeting about the March 27 on March 27 about the referendum. So, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that the judge effectively said despite what happened in June, it was effectively the October 2025 meeting in which the PFA bond was discussed publicly, that was legal. Is that correct? >> The judge's ruling in the bond validation hearing said that the approval of the PFA resolution and issued with the bond was done in conformance with Georgia law. >> Thank you. So, that's how I answer your first question. The second question is I believe when the ECLC was officially announced because it's kind of some might argue either secretively or somewhat subtly. You got to pick your advert, right? Whether it was the state of operations presentation in March 2024 or the board retreat with no

035votable actions in May 2024. So now we'll move to August because you're right I've been with you and I remember being particularly concerned about some of the language that was being shared to defend doing this in a way that seemed to be pretty divisive. And so I emailed the board at that particular time and I specifically said, you know, I think if we could get people to support this, I'm happy to read the email aloud if anyone wants me to, but I distinctly remember at least one board member saying it was okay if people were uncomfortable. And so for this whole process, all I have tried to do was make sure that people understood enough to support it. But unfortunately that didn't seem to be something that we could figure out how to do. Additionally,

036in October before the vote, I texted the chair and the vice chair seeing if there was any way we could compromise on this building to get more green space. We conceivably have less space and to reduce the cost. Unfortunately, that wasn't something that anyone else wanted to do. So, that's how I answer it. Thank you for asking. >> I think that you know, >> sorry. >> No, I think that um looking back there are multiple ways that um the to answer your last question um that perhaps the building could have been and that comes up later, the building could have been changed potentially. However, I think like I said at the last community meeting, um I've always believed in the spirit of the building itself and what it was trying to accomplish. Um and I'll

037leave it at that. >> Unfortunately, the spirit of the building isn't the only decision we're making. And so, while I think we have determined over and over and over and over that the maturity, not all because we don't want to do it, but we don't want to do a survey, supports some form of early learning. I've also heard reasonable questions about how we actually do our legally mandated job of education for K through 12. But th this is fundamentally I believe why we're here because we keep conflating two things. There's the practical logistical decision making and then there's our ethos. And I think we can do both or at least in my 30 years in public education I figured out a way to do that. Although I only make decisions largely in the classroom. I

038think that the main issue here with this particular bill is that it's going to hamstring future boards into having to go to a referendum through the PFA for a particular for a bond based on a particular price tag. So I think that is what we have to think about. Eventually we will we can argue the point and some of your points are valid. I want to just I just want to put that out there. But we can realize that we won't always we won't always be arguing this particular project, but this particular piece of legislation will hamstring future boards. And that is that is my particular point. I feel like uh where memoria was I was cutting you off. Were you going to say something? >> Well, I wanted to >> Well, I was >>

039Okay, >> Nia, I feel like I was cutting her off. >> No, you're good. Um I just wanted to say from my perspective, I wasn't involved in the writing of the letter, but I definitely do support it. I think it I think it is an overreach and I do think the way that democracy um like the community is supposed to hold their electives accountable and I I don't think it's like up to the state to like stop us on the risk. I think the community is holding us accountable and I do think you know we can have an issue with transparency but that doesn't like rationalize this kind of like it's just with completely without precedent and it's just I don't know I think it's just a very gross so I'm in support of >>

040okay one thing I wanted to add too I think just backing up related to the PFA you know a PFA was an option that was chosen that avoided a vote um and you know I think because we've had a public, you know, a lot of questions about transparency and accountability from the community. That's why I am landing where I am. So, I totally agree with you, Carmen, that I totally agree with the spirit of this building and the program, but I just feel that it should be about getting, like we've said, books and seats and making sure that we're serving all of the kids we can to, you know, close that achievement gap. And based on what I have learned being on this board the past four or five months, I just have more questions

041about whether or not we can do that in other ways in terms of programming. And it shouldn't be necessarily about a building per se because I've heard that there's no weight list at the UCL at College Heights right now. We've had really great ideas from Hans that we've floated about putting preK at the lower elementary schools. I mean there's been a decline in enrollment from zero to five. So I just want to make sure that we are doing this right and we've done our due diligence and I just have you know questions about do we need this big building especially with so many questions still remaining. >> Well not gerine to this topic I think it's probably worth clarifying. I don't want misinformation to be out there. There is no wait list at college heights.

042Miss Burton >> is a weightless fork, not for prek. >> Well, I think that those kind of facts need to be clarified otherwise people get confused. >> Sure. >> Okay. But this pending motion is about um a letter to veto Senate Bill 625. Um, so the pending motion is to authorize the chair to sign and send a letter to Governor Kemp requesting a letter to Governor Kemp requesting that he veto Senate Bill 625. Four members and your name is called, please respond with I if you are in fa in favor, no if you are opposed or abstain. If you wish wish to remain neuter Dr. Whitaker, please proceed. Chair Sultan, >> I. >> Vice Chair UT, >> I >> board member Anderson. >> No. Board member Hearnen I. >> Board member. >> No. >> Sultan

043the tally stands. Three eyes, two nos and zero abstensions. The eyes have it. The motion is carried. Um and the motion carries. Okay. The next um question is um for the group is what would happen if the governor does not um veto the bill? Is this open discussion? >> Yes, >> that's a good question. I've wondered if that means then we are not going to do the deer high school renovations which are much needed and because I know that that was passed in October as a package to do the ECLC and then move on to the DHS renovations. And so I am also wondering that what if there's been discussion internally with administration on what those steps would be. I think the the the question that I've h I'd have the the we're really talking

044about three what has been authorized is really three different projects if you will right I mean we're talking about a new school building a renovations to the to the high school and possibly depending on rates or favorable market conditions a refinancing of of existing debt. And so it it would strike me that if we look at that in three different projects as opposed to one, um does that put us in a position to uh explore other funding mechanisms that might be in front of us? >> Okay. Any other discussion? if we would have to look at a total needs assessment in June when this capital improvement uh presentation was first offered. Um one claim was there was no more space. I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. Um the other was that by doing this um

045>> I'm sorry board member Anderson I don't mean to run. What do you mean no more no more space? On one of the slides, it specifically says no more space equals inequitable access. I think it was implied there was no more space in early learning. It wasn't entirely clear. Then I think the claim with the ECLC is that um in addition to obviously meeting um the need of our um students most in need, it's also for staff. And the claim is that it would impact staff morale, teacher recruitment and retention. Where I get a little confused is we have flatlined at 84% teacher retention for 23 24 and 25. Um specifically our prek teacher retention rate has is from 75 I think 100 7550. Georgia's pretty much holding steady at 90%. I looked at the

046job openings just today. We have eight high school positions, nine middle school positions, four elementary school positions, and nine special ed positions, as well as I believe five early learning. Not all of those for just teachers. I think there's like 033 provider, a prek teacher. And so maybe building this will do this, but to my knowledge, we have more openings right now since our March presentation. And so I would like to see an entire needs assessment to ensure that when we started this, whether it was two 2017, which is what some people keep telling me, or 2024, whether it was March or August, that our needs are still the same. I also looked up the FTE numbers for preK since 2017 when I believe the land was first purchased. And from what I can tell,

047unless Georgia DOE isn't providing the correct information, it's what we already knew when we were talking about K through two. So in 2017, we had 209 preK students and 447 kindergarteners. Uh 2027 March FTE, which was just a month ago, we have 157 preK students and 272 kindergarteners. And so I've heard a lot about I guess there are a lot of children out there. I'm not convinced that the need in 2026 in our city is the same need that it may have been 10 years ago. Um and then I'm still back to the CTA stuff and understanding a lot more about what these actual projections look like. >> I think those are valid I'm go ahead. I think that's part of where the confusion about data comes from and I don't have it in front

048of me but we have heard we've discussed the number of kids that are in birth three in this city publicly by my knowledge five times. Um we we we've had the discussion and the breakdown of the numbers. We've talked about the weight list at the freighter center. We've individually visited it. Um, the CTAE has been going on for three years. I had the benefit of being the board member that represented with principal Sproul was at the time the director of the CTA. We got back a report from the state that was like groundbreaking CTA stuff. You're just not serving enough students. It'd be amazing if you could serve more students. I just feel like this data is out there. I mean, we can continue to say that I haven't seen it, but the truth is

049we've we've said it and the data is out there. We we had a public meeting at the housing authority and the director of the housing authority said there are many parents here who choose not to speak up because who would love to take advantage of this and would happily take advantage of this. Many of them would turn the DHA into I believe her words were like a destination place for young mothers looking to raise children. I don't understand why we can if we keep asking for data we haven't seen that's been provided then yes we're going to create a lack of transparency. Actually, James, I'd like to clarify that because I think it's a little unreasonable to expect people to do kind of mental gymnastics. So, when we went through the K through2 process is

050I believe when we learned that the data we were getting was somewhat inaccurate. >> So, the data that people raised questions about in the ECLC that I remember that are rightfully so are birth rates, whether those are sustainable or there will be a bounceback. We got some push back on the data on the cost and whether um it would impact the community around there. So we got some excellent data from members of the community that maybe what ed planners had provided us did not do a full assessment of the way that it impacts prices over the long term and can be detrimental for a community. Those two totally agree with. >> Okay. And then >> but we got to be a little careful too because when we when we say things are inaccurate that that

051puts a per perception out in the community. And so the reality is we know >> how many kids there are in the different age cohorts. We have that very precise 1,297 as of a year and a half ago. The new numbers it'll be possibly in that same range, right? But we have absolute understanding of what the numbers are for the kids in the different cohorts. We also know the size of the weight lists that we have. It is historically the case that the weight list tends to disappear at prek because parents find alternatives by the time they get to prek. So our weight lists in 0 to three have been consistent. We know the n like 1,297 kids that are the age cohort that we're talking about zero to four in the city schools of

052the cater. We know where we are with these weight lists list. When we talk about what's inaccurate, it's not even it's not even correct to call it inaccurate. The projections that we saw from the Woolport report, I think people in the community brought forward reasonable questions about how accurate those projections were going to be. A projection is not meant to be precise. And I actually agree with some of the things that were brought forward from the community around are we able to, you know, two years out just flatline project the growth going forward. Well, the answer there is is clearly no. So, some of the some of the questions around birth rate, some of the questions around what other assumptions are we making about what the future is going to look like, those are reasonable

053questions for us to ask around large future projections, but the answers around what the current demand is are exceptionally wellknown and we've talked about it publicly many times. And so, there's not there isn't an inaccuracy there. I think the other thing too to bear in mind when you're talking about projections, especially this circles back to what we just said about prek and not having a weight list, is that the class sizes change, the ratios change, so we're able to get kids off of some of those weight lists and that's why and we're able to accommodate more students. So hence, if we have more classes, we can accommodate more students. We can get the weight list down. The projections tend to vary over time. That that's I think also something that we have to be careful

054about saying, well, this group, you know, has this many students on the weight list. this is where our projection is within cohorts because the the ratios in the classrooms also adjust based on age groups. Um I think Mrs. Burton has been very clear about that um when looking at both Frasier and college height. I also want to circle back to your point about teacher retention. I think you're spot on. Our teacher retention levels or rates or percentages is something that we have to keep a pulse on. It changes year-over-year. Just saying that it's okay and that we have a lot of teachers is not something that's acceptable. It's multiffactorial. Is this something that's going to be the end- all beall? I do not think so. I think that a lot of teachers will qualify for

055for this particular center because of where their salary level is. So, they'll qualify for a reduced rate and that's something that we need to keep and we need to be transparent and clear about that based on the fact that many of them will have a salary level that we can fund, they will get a reduced rate. and with and that will be helpful and it's something that we should be able to provide. >> I do want to clarify a few points there. One, our teacher retention rate hasn't varied. It has stayed consistently at 84% which is lower than the metro. Two, I don't remember when we got this data. I think at times we tend to rely on what we know. So when I moved to Decatur there was a very my daughter's 16. I

056believe it's when a lot of people moved to Decatur for the And so at times I believe that we're conflating an old experience with a new one without enough filling in. So what I'm hearing is we have the data to reliably say that we have little humans in the city edicator. That's not up for question. What I want to know more about is the way we have assessed one our teacher and staff pool. I've asked that before and it has not been answered because just like when we were going to do the duplexes which were still on the table when the ECLC was first announced there was no real process to determine who would get to live there. Thus far I'm still not aware of which staff will benefit from this benefit. Is it by

057years served? Is it you're talking about salary. So, if we committed to something that says you have to make under a certain amount to have this, do we know we have enough staff? Who want it? In our charter review, what I read is last year 44% or was it the year before me because they're kind of the little bit on 44% of our new teachers were from our grow your own. So, I just have not seen any analysis of a sustained need of the staff. I'm guessing it could be there. I know for myself, I liked taking my daughter somewhere where I could drop her off even when I had the opportunity here because I had to work and had to drive to work and I wanted to spend an extra 50 minutes in the

058car with her. So, yeah, if I were making the decision, I would say it sounds like a great staff benefit, but I don't want to make consequential decisions based on my anecdotal experience and my assumption. And similarly, if we're looking at the city demographic and we're looking at some of the surveys we've done, are we sure that the children of today's or their parents all want full-time care? I know when we went to Grand Rapids, I know one of the surveys need to talk more about afterchool or partial care. And so, there are lots of things here that I do not feel like I have had satisfactory answered. I'm not challenging data. I'm not trying to confuse anyone, but it would also be helpful we actually published it somewhere instead of continuing to tell people,

059"We told you, we told you, we sold you." Those are all reasonable points there. I think offering I think offering all of those alternatives, especially for staff, like three days a week in Grand Rapids, they said they offer three days a week, but they make a whole student by offering two days a week. That's how they make that reasonable. Also just want to back up, you know, if this SB 625 is passed, it sounds like we're in a fundamentally different arena will be capped, you know, there'll be a referendum. And I'm just wondering um since I know the PFA package that was passed in October was the Gator High School renovations which included an auxiliary gym, a blackbox theater and you know redoing the bonds or some of the debt if the rates were low

060and you know this ELC building. If that changes, it sounds like that's a we're we may be moving into something that's substantially different, materially different than what was previously, you know, approved. And I'm wondering how are we going to do that? Do we, you know, it sounds like we might have a natural pause um if this happens, if SB 625 happens, and maybe that's the time that we need to reook at everything because I don't know if we're materially shifting if we don't need to, you know, have another vote and reconsider what we h what we're able to do with the funding. Well, I mean, at any point that we however we choose to fund and whatever the path forward is, it's going to require a vote, right? There is there is a vote in

061front of us, right? Whether it's to accept bonds or to find alternate financing or what have you, there is a there is a vote in front of us. So, that that is going to happen. I don't think anything can happen without, you know, the discussion in the board um uh taking that particular step. I guess we had originally when we talked about some of the financing options had looked at uh options other than the PFA. I mean those are still available are they not? >> And I I think to board member area's good point is that um the first thing is that is understanding the scope of the project, the design of the project and exactly what that means so that you know exactly what you're financing. Um so um the first recommendation um I

062will read um at the last board meeting on April 14th, the board requested that Parish Construction provide alternative designs to the ECLC building that would reduce the footprint of the building. Parish provided two alternative designs which have been made public on CSD's website and at the community meeting on April 22nd. If any alternative building design is adopted, CSD may be required to go back through the HPC process and obtain comments on the new design as well as the permitting process through the city of Decar. For these reasons, is recommended that the board reject the alternative design to and proceed with the current phase 2 design of the ECLC building prepared by Parish Construction. So the motion is to proceed with the current phase 2 building design of the ECLC building prepared by parish construction. >>

063Second >> or make second the motion. Is there any discussion? Yeah, I'd like to know, did we actually pay for the um appearance of um compromise and change with design uh options that I think people have been looking at and commenting on? So, can someone explain if we paid for those u modified designs? >> What do you mean paid like pay parish to >> Yeah, the parish or the architect? Were they just doing it for fun or was there a charge associated with coming up with new designs? >> So, one of the recommendations from the HPC that we received was this one um that before uh that we revised the design to reduce the building footprint and maximize contiguous public green space usable for community events. So either I hate to put it this way,

064but either we do we we follow that and ask for a design, but then if we reject it, it would just show no, we're actually I think that there was a hearing on it. I think that there's been time to digest it. And so no, I think it's a legitimate question. I think we were just trying to add to the best way possible to analyze whether or not there was options there and what those costs would look like. But I thought your legal guidance earlier was that effectively the city had no real legal authority according to your >> just like the archaeological survey that you just approved. Just because they can't compel us to do something doesn't mean we can't act in good faith and do it voluntarily which I think was what it was

065done. But the only difference is I believe up to this point any question about the archaeology survey didn't cost us money. But the design options that were pres I guess in a hot minute for all of a week for people to look at those did cost us money. >> That might be a good question for RCOS. I mean, if if the basis of the question is we shouldn't have spent money to in good faith comply with the recommendations coming out of HBC, I would say no, no, no, it's reasonable for us to have spent that money. >> Well, then who but who decided that we reject those now? I thought the motion was >> Nobody has decided which in front of us were this is the discussion, >> but it's it's framed that way. It

066wasn't framed as now the motion is to do something else. the motion. I thought as it was worded, I'm summarizing it with effectively, hey, >> we're gonna reject these. >> We have any discussion before three people say, "Yeah, let's reject." I have to frame the motion as a yes or >> it just feels like at this point it's a bit of a false choice because both of the other options cost more money per square foot. are you seeing because we're doing this late frustrating disappointing because it's not ideal. >> I'm actually my my personal perspective is less about the cost per square foot. I think that there's still work to be done there. I'm more concerned about being required to go back in front of the HPC, to go back in front of the gauntlet

067uh and and give the naysayers more options to take a axe swing at it. I I just there's still committed groups of individuals that don't want to have this built. I'm not interested in in in putting it back in front of the HBC over that. >> I think board member Eric makes a good point. When we brought this before the community, they had some legitimate questions about why the uh two options basically they all look like look the same. It looked even like if we made some adjustments, we weren't going to save any money dramatically. Do you have some or uh Dr. Wford, does anybody have any follow-up information about why the redesign costs were what they were? Um, good afternoon board chair and um, esteemed board members. I apologize. My notes are right back

068in my back in the in the back there, but I go off my head. I should remember everything. So, while the costs went up, we have bid a GM um, guaranteed maximum price. We bidded that in 2025. based off of 2025. Board member Arriier said, you know, starting at a later date, there's going to be some escalation, redesign costs, a lot of things that go into that. One of the that that second design, what you would call a design degree, where you look at about a third of the building chopped off. Um, not only did you just lose that part of the building, we we had to reconfigure the cafeteria and other spaces inside of the building which cause a domino effect of sort of rearranging that building. So that's going to bring in more

069design pieces and to board member us. We would have to go back for permitting HBC. We have that kind of really start the process over with that type of dramatic cut. Is there a 5% penalty? I think I remember reading that. If we go into the second quarter, I remember reading that in one of the um court decisions that you testified that there were five there would be a 5% penalty if we weren't able to start building in the first quarter. That correct? >> I'm not sure. That may be escalation. >> Probably more escalation. >> I don't remember penalty anything like >> would just be an additional cost whether it's called a penalty or not if we don't start I guess by the end of the week is that >> he will be paying an

070extra million and change. I think that >> I want to make sure I answer correctly. So penalty is almost like in lie of you doing something right now additional cost would be factors of reduction. So the price of material is going up because the price of trans Georgia is just one of those states that are suspended the gas tax but not all materials come out of Georgia. And so you look at the price of diesel it's just going up. So when you rebid it out, those prices will be backed in into it. >> So one of those one of those costs was to the tune of 1.5 million. So you're saying that those those costs are related to um are related to HPC or they're related to materials cost. Is that what you're >> So

071material cost and redesign cost. >> Redesign cost and materials. >> Right. Okay. Well, the the material cost would be what drives the difference in the per square foot cost. The design costs and any exiting of existing contracts costs are in that 1.5. Presumably, the inflation and diesel is part of what's driving the per square foot cost difference between those, right? They fall in different places, but yet so It appears to be that we're talking all things cost building. And when I went back and I looked one of the earlier presentations, I think it was again the the fixtures and the furniture etc. that was identified as a capital cost. Now, when we're looking at FY27 budget, it appears that we put it in operations. And so, I don't know anymore which topic is which here

072because to me it's all money and all money that I want to in my board capa capacity um make the best decisions for all our students based on all the available facts. And so with it it being the cost and the scope of the building because I think where we started was the motion of taking the two additional design options that were debuted I believe last Wednesday on April 22nd at the community meeting. Then when I emailed to ask that the public be able to see them, the indicator had reported, you know, a board member effectively saying, "Hey, we want your input if you love one of these or, you know, hate one of them." So then it went live. I I saw it linked in a Facebook page. We got a survey this morning

073with the results. So between Wednesday the 22nd and Monday the 27th, we've gone from some what like analysis of these. It it just it really feels long is all I could say to have had two design options presented on Wednesday as if they were being treated seriously and then we come here Monday and the motion is to effectively get rid of them. >> I think I think also at least from this is just from my perspective. We spent two hours going over this the last board meeting and trying to figure out if we could make an adjustment, where we could make an adjustment. And that's where I think he took back to the designers and we had an opportunity to present that before the community, but we spent two hours trying to figure out where

074we could make adjustments if adjustments could be made. So, um I think that's where we arrived at the the second and third. I guess it's just so unfortunate that it seems to have the at times it's like you have to work so hard to find the um facts and have to work so hard to trust that this was done in the spirit of actual change and for that I'm very sorry because you know it's hard to get um taking care of kids wrong because I don't know who wouldn't want to do that. um in any kind of public capacity. So, I think it's just unfortunate like the twotory design that debuted in August and probably cost us money um that here we are again. >> Can you clarify that? Um if the designers just draw

075a redesign, how much does that does that cost? So there's there's not a >> if we don't go through permitting if we just have a redesign that we put up for presented as far as a redesign or a design not an additional fee that goes along now like GMC is our architect they're not saying yeah we'll do that for this fee is part of the design schematic >> the cost come in if we choose one and >> if we if we elect to say let's go do option whatever and it causes a redesign we have to do move yeah and if we start all the way over it's like everything that we pay is because we're not using it's not their fault that we're not using what we have so if we start over fees

076start over >> I have another question just backing up here and maybe Jody can Mr. Pamel can answer it. Um, since we're kind of in this limbo waiting to see if SB 625 is signed or not, um, can we what's our stance on issuing the bonds? Can we move forward with this construction before May 12th? You know, when I think that's when the governor has to sign the bill or not. Um, I'm just wondering what is >> a practical matter. My understanding is that the PFA will not hold a vote on the pricing of the bonds until after a decision is made by the govern. >> Okay. So, we can't really >> not if we're going to go through the PFA. >> Yeah. I guess I just don't really understand the implications of like making

077the motion or like the motion on the table today like say that they rejected his eye and like what happened and then like why why is this? So, the purpose of this particular motion is to settle on one of those three designs. Um, because the which of whichever design we pick basically determines how much we're borrowing. >> So, I'll reread the motion for clarity and then we can vote. Thank you for that though. >> Wait, can can I get that part clarified because this really concerns me because I think now it's like we have two trains running on two separate tracks. So, one appears to be the um building um and the projects that were approved by three board members um in October. If however, >> well, I thought that one had to recuse themselves

078and that's why it was three. Am I wrong about the October vote? >> Yes, >> I'm wrong about the October vote. I recuse myself from picking a financial advisor to oversee the funds, but I've voted for the board multiple times. >> Okay. All right. So, the majority of the board approved this design with this funding mechanism. Um, so fine. Let's say the governor says, you know what, I don't care that 40 senators um voted yes for SB625 and I'm going to veto it. Now the second track though is okay there is no access to the TFA bond and I'm a little concerned about a vote that would suggest that we are going to move forward with this design in the event that the governor doesn't veto. So that I'm reading as a separate kind of

079train track because it seems like the building design was already created before the PFA bond vote and so it sounds like funding would and it already has anyway. We've already established you know diesel and such. So, I'm not comfortable voting for anything that would commit us to further expenditures until we know what the governor is doing. >> That makes sense to me. >> Well, no, no, no. I mean, so design option one is the one that isn't going to change, right? Like that's the GMT. So, so we know the numbers and we know what we would need in terms of debt pay for that that first option. I think the question is how right like if the if the if the governor doesn't veto the I think the the the main question is how do

080we you know finance and there are options but um I think for for the purposes right now it's understanding what is the dollar amount that we're looking at right because if if $20 million and we say that we're just looking at the ECL LC then the PFA goes forward without I mean am I understanding that legislation correctly that that if we get it under $20 million and limit it to just the building then we can continue to use the PFA. >> So the superior court orderizes the sale up to a certain amount that doesn't mean we have to go up to that amount basically just gave us authorization to go there. If we through cost cutting measures are able to get any particular project below the $20 million threshold, then it would not be subject

081to the uh Senate Bill 625 legislation and we could use DFA process without a referendum. And then the high school would just be a construction wing because you're going to relocate Frasier Center and then I guess >> have some kids do a volunteer project because what's going to happen to the part of the high school housing the Frasier Center that no longer has that >> exactly the bond was to do Decatur High School renovations, you know, possibly refinance it race, you know, at a good rate and and do the ECLC. So, it just seems like we are drastically moving away from what was authorized with the PFA bond. If that's the case, it seems like we need to really, this is a natural pause for us to really reset and see what we need. >>

082I think to clarify, you can come in, if we initially went to the PFA for 52 million, if we come back for 19 million, then that's reasonable. It's if you want to come in higher, then they have to >> Yeah. If then we would have to we would be subject to this legislation. >> But wouldn't that fundamentally change materially change what was voted on with the CFA bond to do Decar High School renovation and the ECLC because that's what it was proposed as a package going to do all of this. But now it sounds like there's a potential of it shifting to just funding the ECLC. And that sounds materially different. >> So I mean the board could vote to change the process. They could say, "Okay, given the change of circumstances caused by 625,

083we've decided not to proceed with part of this project, cut part of it out." So, right to your point, yes, there there would probably need to be a forward vote and today even if it >> seems like we can't really do anything until May 12th when we know whether or not this bill >> if we go through the PFA. >> I don't think we we can vote today. So that I mean your point is well made and you know the question of whether we should wait is different than whether we can. We don't have to. I mean you can argue we should but if you if the question is do you we have the power today to vote to move forward andor change any of the financing mechanisms we have that authority. And and just

084to be clear, I think if we are talking about just focusing on the ECLC, that does not mean that we are ending any future work on the high school. It just means that we're talking about figuring out financing just for the ECLC itself. And >> presumably that means we'd have to come back and have a conversation about financing the high school, getting more detail on what the scope in the project is on the high school, which I've heard questions about. >> Um, okay. >> I think >> Sorry, you go ahead. Yeah, because my understanding and I'd love to be corrected where I might be wrong is the people that attended the second round of past sessions. So, not the rapid fire ones that took place August September of 2024 that reportedly resulted in the building

085design, but the spring past sessions for which there were supposed to be three and the third one was cancelled. I've heard that there was discussion of kind of CTA space there. So I think we need to be very clear as well because we started calling this facility a learning lab at some point and we've highlighted CTA, but if the high school renovation was also to expand the CTA that I think James talked about earlier, that sounds like it would be greatly compromised. And so any discussions I think are both um I don't see how responsibly I could do one today. I don't have the numbers in front of me. I don't get to see the different implications. >> Well, I think that is an excellent point because the first building design encompasses that it has

086the CTA learning lab. it that's what and and I think I would love to know exactly what what your because on the one hand if we if we go and I've said this in the public meeting if we go and we try to you know keep cutting parts of the building out then we're going to cut out some of what it's meant to what it's meant to serve if we keep the original design then the next step needs to be to figure out how to fund it um it is true I agree with board member area completely then the Part two of that conversation needs to be how we get to that second domino, which is how we fund the high school. But we first have to realize that it is it is true will

087be a learning lab, but we have to figure out how we're going to to fund it if that's what we're committed to. We can keep going back and forth, but I think the the first motion here is to figure out which design we want, get behind that, and then we can figure out how we're going to get through the funding. I I guess I still just don't understand like it has only been up for a week and I don't understand the urgency of deciding on the dead before May 12th unless there's like benefit to like the PSA or something like I just don't get why the decision is being made right now. >> Yeah, me too. >> I already said that. So >> it's going to be fundamentally different if this SB625 passes and I

088think then we, you know, have to really pause and figure things out. Well, I don't No, no, no. I don't know about that. Right. I mean, there are a host of other financing options that we could choose to pursue. I think the core question is, do we break it into two steps? Step one, ECLC, step two, high school, or do we keep it all together as a single step? And if we want to take stay with the PFA, we can't. If the PFA passes uh and we want to stay together as the PFA, then the only option is is referendum. If we keep it together, if we separate it, then we have an option to pursue ECLC alone. >> I would just like for us, if there is going to be a delay, like this

089SB 625 is signed or not, because that seems very important, um, then we'll have a natural pause to have to reconfigure and figure things out. And I think we all agree and believe in early childhood learning. And this these delays are not ideal. And I know everybody wants to get kids in classes if that's you know if there is a delay. And I'm just wondering at this point if that happens can we make a commitment because I know that this is not this building now may not happen or be built until 20 until you know what school year 27 28 or later. Not any later though. That would be the >> right. And so I just want to recommmit to what you know the goal of this building was which is early childhood learning and

090making sure that we can close achievement gap as soon as possible. >> So given that if we wait what would be our exact plans because we have another board meeting in May. Um and I think like Mr. Campbell said we can act today. We can finalize a design or we can I think like we've done multiple times before we can keep we can keep delaying things. What would we be what would what exactly would be our plan coming out of this meeting and going into May? >> I like what the community members send us earlier today. That looked like a pretty robust plan even if all of the details um but looked pretty thorough to me. Looked like the proposal was to get it done before um the World Cup in June. get what done?

091>> The sorting out of whatever this um decision making will be to best serve students, which is in the short term making sure that any available space um that we have that can be provided to our media students is offered. Um, additionally making sure that we are looking at the production of building spaces in the most effective way, recognizing as well some of the changing landscape like legacy, but I think it was sent at 10:39. So, I'm not sure if everyone got to see >> I'm not I'm not opposed to that. I think that we have to be very clear with community members as to how much feedback we're going to take and when this clock expires. Otherwise, I think we could end up having the same conversations over and over again. And I feel

092like that does I've been very public about that. I feel like that does appear somewhat disingenuous. So, I think we also have to be very clear about what, you know, what feedback we're taking when the clock expires and then what we're going to do with it. Otherwise, I do get um I personally get frustrated with multiple pauses because then I think we're just we're continuing to go around and around without a a solid plan in place. >> So, then I I think I think a couple of things. one, I think probably let's commit to May being able to have this decision as a part of the May board meeting. I also think coming out of this meeting, we need to direct the superintendent to to just do the exploration into what other funding options are

093available. We need to have that information anyway, right? So that we just have a full picture of what all optionality is in front of us. So um >> you have a pending motion. >> Okay. So we Well, this is in order to move on from this motion or to not do this motion, I would want to have comfort that that we are actually exploring what all of our alternatives and all of our options are. Uh and so and so if we are if we are saying that this will be something that we do, I I think we can do this in in May, right? I mean, I don't know that we need to wait till June. I think we can have this conversation in May. I need that clarify because I I'm not clear if

094you're talking solely about funding options where you're also talking about the different iterations of whatever learning. I'm I'm saying that by May we ought to be able as a body to select which of the three options we want to move forward as a body and then as a part of that conversation I would want the administration to be able to come to us with funding options for anything that they're that that we're looking at alternative to the PFA. >> So just to be clear though talking about the three designs that when the motion started we were just two of them going to ignore but now we're >> No, no, no. We might have voted down the motion, right? Like that. Let's just be clear. We could have voted down the motion. I I think what

095we're talking about now is withdrawing it until we can make the motion in in May. >> Well, no. I want to know more about those designs though because I don't feel like I've gotten a lot of explanation other than, hey, we lobbed off this part of the building uh for, you know, seemingly relative to the amount minuscule savings. um or we lobbed off that section of the building. And this to sound critical, but it just doesn't seem like it's an option that anyone would ever entertain. I mean it's just and I thought we were going to get more information to fill in some of those questions about those rather curious up so much building space but really resulted in so little financial savings. I think I think I think that at the end of the

096day I think we need to be very clear about some expectations. I think it's very unlikely that and and Mr. Adams you can correct me if I'm redirect if I'm wrong here. I think some things are no matter which way we could come up with 50 iterations and we could leave them up for the next year or two years. We're not going to get to greater than 50% green space or even close to it. Um we're just probably not going to get there. So if people are weighing in thinking that um they probably need to realize that that's probably not going to happen. Um even with chopping off half of the building, you're probably still not going to get to that metric. Um it's probably unlikely that at this point um even after the first

097round of trying to do a redesign with which is that two-story design that if they even if we came up with a fourth and fifth design, we asked all our questions, we come back in May that it's going to shave several million off of the cost. I don't know if we're going to get there given and then with all of these significant delays, we're going to have to go out, rebid, repermit. So you're probably going to be looking at breaking even or even more expensive. Those are we can get down into the line item by line item. We can certainly do that. But realize it's unlikely. So we have realistic expectations that we're going to see Eureka. We came up with like chopping off $4 million off of the thing. Now in my understanding or

098>> out of turn. >> So I think we just I mean we can absolutely wait until this bill passes or doesn't pass if by >> some miracle Governor Kemp likes my signature. Maybe he does. Um, but it's unlike I want us to have realistic expectations about what we may be getting because I think to board member H. Hearnden's point, we can keep asking for the same things over and over again in different variations, but just so that we have realistic expectations of the questions that we're asking so that we have some inpoint. I don't disagree with leaving that survey up to board member Spatra's point. Leave it up for another week or so. But I also think we have to be very clear with community members about when the the time clock for feedback ends.

099>> I think to your Greenspace point. So what I have read in the feedback that people provided just since I guess that's the 26th maybe it was the 24th. Um and I'm sorry to anyone who may have mentioned green space but it's more to do with need and kind of responsible spending. You know, of course, there were a few people that just said no, and that is their right, and we have to listen to that. Um, but you know, I reviewed the board's code of ethics this morning, and you know, it's one of the scriptures. It's to render all decisions based on available facts and to reflect actions through this kind of, you know, effectively commitment to all the children in all the schools. By the way, I insert it all. Okay, it says children

100because it should be all. And so for me, it is making sure that I am making the most responsible decision. And those designs don't tell me that. And so I I really take issue with the idea that we're constantly pausing something that may be needed to be fixed. >> Board member Anderson, what specific questions do you have for Mr. Adams so he can take those back to the team so that we can use our time most productively? Sure, it's it's me again in the observation rooms because I was thinking of October when the board met with the city and I distinctly remember the architect talking about the flexibility of the building because I happened to know what it's like to have taught before we had Chromebooks in classrooms that were not built with plugs. And

101so that's just one example of kind of flexibility. So, I've been really just kind of racking my brain besides looking up Georgia State's early learning and they do have observation rooms, but they also observe in the classroom. I look at pictures of other colleges that are doing early learning and I don't see many instances of someone standing behind a piece of glass and so I am wondering then how is that flexible? So, we know that there are various CTA pathways. We know that we are charged with educating students and so I'm sorry I have nothing against observation rooms whoever created them. Um but I'm back there now for a second reason. How are they flexible? How did we look to see that they will be used in three years for this and in five years

102for that and in nine years for that if necessary? >> Good question. I want to reward it just to make sure I capture the essence of the question. You're asking how flexible are the observation rooms in building or usage? >> Well, ultimately it when you have a a space, right, and I still take issue with a multi-purpose space because I feel like we have enough and if we don't, I would have loved that needs assessment. I have not seen a space needs assessment that convinced me some of the spaces in that building are necessary. >> Just back to the question on this question. If this is a classroom, once you build an observation room over there, it seems like it is space that is less able to be used for any possible purpose. And we

103have, I think, eight or 10 of those. So, how are how is the building built in a way to be flexibly used if it turns out that those rooms will serve a better purpose like auto mechanics? I think that's a CTAE pathway. So your question is about the construction of the >> flexible I think when we started the project with the city in October we were told specifically that the building would be created with flexibility in mind because you know things change right what students are studying today may not be what they were studying 10 years ago. The way that students are studying today may be different whether it's you know grouping and so you want kids sitting at big tables no longer at the desks. So I don't understand how the observation rooms alone

104evidence that flexibility because >> I may I attempt to ask the question board member understand if that's okay. At the end of the day if we don't if we don't need the observation you realize we don't need those rooms. How hard is it to either take them out repurpose them or use them for another need that we really need them for? >> It wouldn't be difficult. Um the reason I was asking for clarification if it was construction like dollar save there's no dollar save because it's just pending to the space. Um so to your point if we needed to just close those observations room and make those walls you know perfectly straight in the hallway inside the classroom that's not a huge undertaking for our maintenance team to knock out and because those won't be

105loadbearing walls. >> Okay. One other thing I guess let make sure. >> Okay. >> So construction wise there's no cost not a substantial cost saving or addition for those observation rooms that is around construction usage. I just want to make sure I answer your question correctly. Usage if it needs to be changed it's an amendment that we can make fairly easy within the maint. So I guess what I'm hearing you're saying is that if in 10 years observation rooms go the way of the dodo bird and we figure out something else, the team could come in, knock a wall out, expand the classroom or turn it into some other >> it would be a it's not a loadbearing wall. >> Yeah. >> Is is there something else that you want them to look into other

106than the observation rooms? No, because the the ultimate problem for me is that we have this kind of immutable thing now. And so because it appears we didn't do enough. I don't know why the community finally got involved, right? I think I know why because I remember at the beginning saying, "Hey, people have questions." But we've got this building now and it's like give us feedback on it or don't. In May, we'll decide. And so it just doesn't seem to have the flexibility that would have been nice to know before it was presented. So that possibly, and I'm sorry for those people who are tired of hear me talking about the observation rooms, imagine if there had been a meeting where enough people got to give feedback so we could assess that one thing because

107then to your point, Dr. consultant. What if it did turn out that we got rid of the observation rooms and there is more green space? But now the way the building is constructed that or designed and given the cost scenarios and the contract and inflation, it just feels like >> I think I better understand your question now. >> So the observation room is not going to change the footprint of the building. It's not going to shorten it. or is it did the observation room increase the level of building? Um it it is designed inside of that footprint and uh about flexibility. It's totally flexible because it's not a major project to amend the interior renovation if needed. So, and we got that from the last time we heard you talking about observation room and so

108we started that research. Uh, we do have someone capturing notes because I think the directive was for you to give us a list of questions. >> Um, and if you could just give us those list of questions. Now we have someone capturing those notes and we get that information back to you. >> Yeah, because the other thing is the operating cost. I believe we've been told 70K and that's just really hard for me to process when it is a bigger space. I believe in College Heights. And then there's this kitchen. And then at the community meeting, there was an impression at least from some people that this building might be open at different times. So then I mean, I don't do big budgets, but it sounds like there's increased security personnel that we currently do

109not have at college heights because I can't conceive of a world in which a school facility would be open after hours and there wouldn't be security personnel there. Someone else was talking about kitchen and that the kitchen is a different grade and operational use than what's at college height. I want to see that math that got us to only 70k as an increase in operating cost for this. >> So sir, I'mma reword your question is how is the increase in operational operational cost only 70,000 >> or I think what I would rather see is a detailed list of how it was determined. So give give it to me because I don't want to confuse our notes. >> Yeah. How was the 70k increase in operating cost determined? >> Okay. >> And I think that's a

110valid question. That might be more of a Dr. Broom question than a Mr. question. >> So we get that answer. What? So that's one question. Next question. >> I mean I I have others but I don't think you can answer them. So, I just want to note it to get it so we can come back with the answers. >> Well, so I mean rather than put any of us on the spot, why don't give us a little bit of time to think about it and maybe send an email and get that information to you. I think it's more fair to board member Anderson to give her a chance to reflect and pull that together. Right. >> Okay. Um I'm also wondering too about you know we're gonna we're making a commitment today to do the

111archaeological survey phase one which is wonderful and I hope that that you know whatever information we get if we don't know necessarily what we'll find if it's human remains or not that information I hope we'll be able to incorporate meaningfully into the design in some manner but I just feel like we're being rushed right now to vote on a particular design and there's so many unknowns So, I agree with waiting at least until May. Um, I'm not sure what the timeline is for the archaeological survey. Um, but also again, I just want to re-emphasize our commitment and wondering if we can incorporate into, you know, this time that we have looking at, you know, maximizing and utilizing what we have in terms of space. I know you talked about possibly having prek at the lower

112elementary schools and um, Dr. Burton I think Mr. certainly was going to explore that if that was feasible with decal I would love to hear more about that if that's possible then let's do that as soon as we can >> and and to be clear if I if I may because I think there's a difference between additional prek space which requires some break from the start analysis or decal analysis versus just moving what we already have into some of the northern uh K2s which would not require ire so far as I understand any kind of change in terms of right from the start. I think getting the kids out of their trailers and providing parents access to preK that is more convenient on the north side of the school that that should be something that

113we it's not even a part of this conversation that just should be done like that is a separate thing. Um I I mean I certainly know speaking from my own experience and I have certainly talked with parents that feel the same way about this. You know, I had a prek that was right around the corner. I I wasn't about to try to drive all the way across town when I had three other kids I had to drop off at different schools all at the same time to get my kids to to College Heights. and having easily accessible prek for the kids that are on the north side. I think frankly I think we would see a huge jump in the number of people that selected to go into Decatur City Schools program. I think that

114yeah, just looking at what we can do right now since it sounds like some of this for a while is super important and focusing on the kids, making sure they have access because if we're able to move, you know, prek to to these lower elementary schools to have, you know, different access points, then maybe we can have more space at college heights now for zero to three. So, I just want us to be cognizant of, you know, I >> also was going to say I think I I don't have a problem with the prek conversation continuing. I think but to board me um it's not necessarily germanine to this particular discussion at all but I think to board member Anderson's point which which is a teacher retention and teacher satisfaction I think we really need

115to get the opinion of the prek teachers before we make this change just based on this particular project alone. I know that some of the prek teachers have some thoughts about how this goes. Um, you know, if you have a kid that goes 0 to three one place, prek another place, kindergarten another place, first grade potentially another place, that's a lot of moving around. Um and they may or may not the teachers may or the principles or may have some thoughts on that >> more on if feasible and having more zero to three at college height as soon as possible. I think that seems reasonable. >> Yeah. I want to also say that we cannot put zero to three in portables. So the prek is in the portable. So if you remove prek from college

116heights, it does not increase 0 to three at college heights because you would not put 0 to three in portable >> but would potentially would it open up space? Just wondering in the building to have another 0 to3 classroom. >> I think what they're saying is no because it's just prek that are in the portables and so you would not be opening more zero to three space. you would just be moving foury olds out >> from one location, >> which which just to be clear is a virtue in of itself. I just I don't want to miss that. >> Making sure we're maximizing the space that we have right now for kids. I think it's important not just for prek but >> to this particular motion. It sounds like there's general agreement that we are

117wanting to push out a decision on the designs until at least until the May meeting. Um, and so do we need to resend this motion? Are we amending it to >> We can withdraw that one. Two questions for the board. The first one is how long do we want to leave that survey up? >> It's board member Anderson. I'm still back at cost. Um, so can I do that or y'all want to move on to the design stuff? >> I I was >> I'd like it if we went ahead and just close the motion on the design thing, but if you want more questions about >> I'm that may be gerine to my second question. >> Okay. >> Um, so the first we're going to move to withdraw this one. And how long do we

118want to leave the survey up? the clarity first. I think some people when I looked at it myself, it's hard to see. I think that is it theization? Is that the right now? So, I appreciate that we'll have it up longer, but we also have to make sure it's readable for people. I know I got that feedback and I found it somewhat difficult to look at. Clearly, >> we think two weeks is fair. Well, so I mean I I do think that it's appropriate for us to ensure that by close of business today, we have high resolution drawings on the site for people to review. >> And then I think that having it up until we set the agenda prior to the May 12th meeting is probably the right window of time. >> Roughly two

119weeks, >> that'll be May 8th, I think. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah, that's two weeks. >> All right. And the second question is, and this point may feed into this question, is are we comfortable authorizing the superintendent to pursue other funding options other than the PFA? Um, not knowing how this Senate bill is going to pass. >> I think >> looking into other options other than the PFA, >> looking into but not necessarily >> so coming back to us with other >> I mean you have to vote on any alternative funding anyway, right? So basically put giving us going and doing all the exploration into whatever information is necessary to be able to inform us so that we can ask questions and be able to make an informed decision about any alternative financing if we

120choose to go that path. >> I I think what I want to see and if it exists please just tell me where it is so I will um go review it. But I would love to see exactly how much we have spent on the ECLC thus far. Um and then when you're looking at projections back to the teacher thing is just one example. Um when I looked I believe at the HR report from last year and I think it was the upbeat survey information just like we got the upbeat survey information in March. I didn't see child care as a need. And yet I did hear a community member share city of Decator information at the community meeting. And so I think it would be reasonable to find out exactly how many staff want this

121opportunity that we are funding apparently for quite a while. Um I I don't can't imagine that's difficult to do. I know I'm not in charge of you, but I I would like to know exactly how many people want this thing that we are saying now we need to find an alternative funding mechanism for. >> Mrs. Burton, how many staff members are at Frasier right now? >> Yeah, I'm not disputing. I I knew that number. I just want to look at projections so we can see this is a real need. you know, it turns out there are 100 CSD employees who want those 50 spots or does it turn out that it's 50? >> Are there staff members on the I feel like waiting lists, we're using that term a lot. Are there staff members you

122suggesting that we like send out a survey to staff members? Yeah, I think it would be due diligence just to see. So, and then back to like, you know, I'm sorry, Hans, but I don't agree with the characterization of naysayers. I uh believe that a lot of the people that have presented questions, and I know the ones I have, it's just I want to know we're doing the smartest thing for this need that we have identified and apparently we have provided some numbers for. So, yeah, that's absolutely what I'd like to see. And then I believe the next responsibility is to explain how this will work. So if it's a benefit then does that matter for all the employees that will never get to use it. And especially when we are looking at compensation and

123we started this year uh I believe in November where we're trying to prioritize those teachers that have spent a good number of years in the classroom with experience. So, if we're going to prioritize this benefit, then are we continuing to prioritize new teachers who may or may not be staying? I don't know. Then the second part is then how does this work benefit-wise in general? Do we roll that into a compensation packet that it turns out is benefiting 50 of what do we have now? Is it 889 employees? So yeah, I would absolutely like to know more about this particular benefit and how it has been assessed in every robust financial way possible. >> Um my opinion on all of this is like the design is that to me the lesson is that there's like

124no significant reduction in cost that won't destroy the spirit of the building. Um, so like I'm happy with that answer, but I think the way trust works is that different people are at different parts of of the process. So like Miss Anderson has more questions that she needs answers before we can all make a decision in May. And I think where we're at is that we like have to make a decision in May around funding. I don't know if anyone disagrees with that. I just don't think this can go on any longer. Um, so I guess I'm just I feel like we should be prepared to make a decision in May. And so it seems like the things we need to know before that are the alternative funding options and maybe a staff survey. And

125I just want to make sure that we get all of those things out so that we're ready to like actually make a decision. and the philanthropy because you know we're now at a point where I think it's reasonable to expect some amount of money that's going to answer to what we rolled out because it was August 2024 and here we are days from May 2026 and we're telling people we're going to do this this being the free tuition by philanthropy and pay tuition and so I I think we're at a point now where it's reasonable to expect some demonstration of that versus an approach. We're going to make decisions, financial decisions. I think we move beyond approach to actual having some information. >> Are you prepared to provide that? >> Yeah. So, I I will

126say um couple things. I will continue to explore funding options. um funding options we have already discussed are combinations of public and private partnerships. So we've talked about props, we've talked about new market tax credits, we have talked about uh angel investors and philanthropy. We've talked about caps. I can bring all of those different options back to you. Um, but I do want you to authorize me to do that because you had a presentation on cops already. So, I'm not going to bring you the exact same presentation because you had that presentation. I will need to engage a little bit >> for cops. >> When you say authorize, you mean we need to vote on something? I would say I need you to authorize me to look into those other that other funding source that

127would be a little more more than just simply an exploration for for May because I've given you >> I I've given you that already in December. >> What what do you need us to do to provide you that authorization? a vote >> to pursue that uh alternative funding. >> Okay. Do we need to make a motion to authorize the superintendent to pursue the All right. >> I guess I'm confused what pursue versus explore. Are we making a commitment to other funding? >> No. No. >> No. >> So, what is it? Yeah. I need more clarity in terms of how this is different because if we're voting on something, then it sounds like resources are being expending expended. Otherwise, why would we be voting on it? So, I don't know what I'm voting on right now

128or what I would be asked to. >> So, no, not all votes mean resources expended. I think that what has as been talked about before, the the superintendent takes her instruction, her direction from the board, and what I've heard from vice chair is that he wants information about other options. We're not voting on those options today. He just wants that information brought. So it's simple and you know directive motion to Dr. Whitaker go and explore come back with a list of options that are available and what each would look like. >> And to be clear it is not in any way authorizing accepting those options financing those options. This is just come back to us with information on these options. Correct. >> And but I heard Dr. Whitaker say I already presented it. So I

129need a little more. >> I think I think what I heard was that she presented it a long time ago and it needs to be updated. Plus there's other opportunities as well. So I'll update what was previously provided and also bring other options. >> Yeah. But we've discussed this. We discussed it in June in December. Those have these other alternative funding options have come before. So, are these things that would have like interest rates or something? Because it's just not clear right now. >> What it is that needs to be happening that hasn't happened. So, I'm only doing amounts or interest rates. >> Yeah. Something like something like comps. You would be looking at interest rates would be one. You know, who might be underwriting or whatever. I'm not actually even sure what the process

130is on comps. That'd be a question that I'd have. But, but I think the question that I'd have is we saw this in June of 25. What does it look like now in May of 26? Right. What's the update? >> Okay. So, um parliamentary miss do I need to is there anything else I need to do to withdraw that force first motion about the design or are we good on that? So draw it um well and get consent from board members with it >> then you can support the next motion. >> Okay. I move to withdraw the motion on the design. >> Second. >> Okay. Everybody consent. We say yes. >> Yes. >> All right. Thank you. All right. So the next motion is that the board authorize a superintendent to pursue financing alternatives via

131cops and bring back to the board a proposal and the May meeting. Is there a second? >> Yeah. No, sorry. >> Second the motion. >> There's a second. There's a second. >> Now discussion. Yes. >> Is it only via cost or other funding? >> Yeah. No, I I was hoping we would see all financial. >> Okay. Let me withdraw and I will reword. Withdraw. Reward. >> Do I get to say something? >> I'm gonna withdraw. >> I understand that. But just >> that added a second action that I'm not comfortable with. I thought it was simply here they are not proposing this one. >> I don't think that's what the definition of proposal means. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> We just had a long conversation. Proposal is here are all of the options

132that we will to discuss. a 15-minute conversation about instead of proposal. >> I I also feel like it'd be valuable to hear the superintendent opinion on what is the best option like a recommendation. >> All right. So, I'm going to withdraw that and reword. Is there a second to withdraw? >> Second. >> All right. Consent, everybody. Consent. >> Yes. Yes. Okay. I'll reword. I move that the board authorize the superintendent to pursue financing options through cost and other measures or the EC LC building and bring back to the board a proposal for funding at the May 12th meeting. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Um, okay. So board members, the pending motion is to authorize the superintendent to pursue financing via cops and other financing alternatives for the ECLC building and to bring these

133motions back these proposals back to the board at the May 12th meeting. Board members, when your name is called, please respond with I if you're in favor know if you're opposed or abstained. If you wish to remain neutral, I'm sorry, did that forget discussion? I'm sorry. Is there any discussion? >> Yes. >> I'm so sorry. I apologize. >> It's okay. >> James is right. I looked at proposal, but um I'm getting confused. Well, because it says or it does say or and so what I'm hearing is research proposal and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the implication that the research was done. And kind of like soulshine due diligence, kind of like these two um options for the ECLC redesign, this is what I'm recommending. I I thought where this started was can we find

134out about other options, not will you pursue other options and then tell us which one you recommend because to me those are two different actions. >> Go ahead. >> First of all, thanks for looking up. Yeah, >> I apologize. I uh my understanding of this is that at the May board meeting she she should present more than just cops but several funding options what they cost what the interest rate would be how we would fund things with them that may include I hope it includes a recommendation but I hope the recommendation is also fairly obvious to all of us looking at it um and that's what I think the motion is for me to vote for just like here the way we fund things these are the total options but is that everyone else's understanding

135>> that's my understanding but for clarity these something like cops, this is not the first time we've heard this. >> So just like a slide saying this is what it is is not like >> I also I also want to be really clear that that we're under no obligation to accept the administration's recommendation. We can absolutely choose to vote for we could in that course of conversation opt for a different option and vote to commit the administration to pursuing that form of funding. Right? So, so uh I mean I think board member Hearn is correct. It'll probably be pretty obvious as it comes out but even in the case that it isn't we get to choose not the administration. >> Any other discussion? All right. All right, we'll try again. Here we go. All right.

136The pending motion is for the board to authorize the superintendent to pursue alternative financing options through cops or other measures for the ECL building and to bring this back to the board for proposal un um for the May 12th meeting. Uh board members, when your name is called, please respond with I if you're in favor, no if you're opposed or abstain if you wish to remain neutral. Dr. Whitaker, please proceed. >> Chair Sal >> I. Vice Chair UT. >> Hi. >> Board member Anderson. >> I see. >> Board member Hearnen. >> Hi. >> Board member. >> I chair Sultan. The tally stands at four eyes, zero nos, and one abstension. All right. The eyes have it. The motion is carried. Okay. All right. Thank you for attending uh the special call meeting today. Our board

137of education meeting will take place as scheduled on May 12th at the Wilson Center. There being no further business, this meeting adjourned at 1:55 p.m. Thank you.