001All right, so it's 6:01. We'll go ahead and call this meeting to order. Welcome everyone. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. Be seated. I do need a motion to approve tonight's agenda. >> So moved. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Hearing none, the motion carries. I do need a motion to enter into executive session pursuant to Idaho Code 74-206 A1B. >> So moved. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. We need a roll call vote. Trustee Bean. >> Yes. >> Trustee Broadhead. >>
002Yes. >> Trustee Donaldson. >> Yes. >> Trustee Flindt. >> Yes. >> Trustee Grisham. >> Yes. >> All right, on that note, we are on executive We are in executive session. And >> Thanks for coming. >> Thank you. >> We're going to give you our new principal work session. >> There you go. Do you want her to come in? I wasn't sure, so I just >> Oh, well, I mean, I don't know. >> And we wanted to turn our microphones off when we left. >> Gosh, on and on. >> I know. >> Off bells. >> She I did not forward her the letter. >> Okay. >> All right, so we've come out of the first executive session. It is 7:02 p.m. I'll entertain any motions at this time. >> Um, I would move that we prepare
003a letter for employee A and submit it to the chair for approval at our next meeting. >> Second. >> We have a motion in the second. Uh Um >> Did you have an addendum? >> I do have an addendum that that letter should be coming from legal counsel to the board. >> Uh yes. Yes, it's a letter prepared by legal counsel for employee A. >> For employee perfect. All right, so we have a motion in the second. You're still seconding, correct? >> Yes. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Hearing none, the motion carries. On that note, I do need a motion to enter back into executive session pursuant to 74-206A1B. >> So, moved. >> Second. We have a motion and a second. We need to have a roll call vote.
004>> Hold on. Okay. Trustee Bain? >> Yes. >> Trustee Brodhead? >> Yes. >> Trustee Thompson? >> Yes. >> Trustee Quimby? >> Yes. >> Trustee Grisham? >> Yes. >> Okay. On that note, we are in executive session. Please turn off your mics and stop recording. Okay. It is 5:00 or 8:15 and we have come out of executive session. There are no post executive session uh motions. Uh no action items, excuse me. So, now we're going to move into the uh action items on the agenda. First up is the THS field house bid. Does anybody have any questions, comments, or concerns about what's being provided to us? >> Nope. >> I'm excited. Looks awesome. >> We're very excited as well. >> Yeah, it looks so cool. >> Prime has worked very hard on this. >> Yeah. >>
005So, now we got to build one at Lakeland, right? >> They need to fundraise the money. >> Any questions, Randy? >> Nope. >> Okay. Then um I'm going to move to approve the bid to Darden Enterprises for $809,477 plus selected alternates alternate alternates. Good lord. As supported by any available funds. >> I'll second. >> We have a motion and a second. >> [laughter] >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Hearing none, the motion carries. I forgot I made the motion. All right. You're welcome. Moving on to the LMS parking lot and Highway 41 improvements bid. >> Oh yeah, I can't wait for that to get done. >> I can't either. >> Took me a half hour to get through there today from Zips to where I could turn at the light.
006>> It's so rough. Um I do have a little bit more information since this packet was put together on Monday. Um the architect and the CMGC went back through and we were able to cut an additional $64,000 out of the price. Um so we were able to save that. Um so the the bid that we're asking you to approve approve tonight is just the bid the base bid minus $64,000. >> So the 172684 minus 60 >> It's a little bit more than 172. >> 172684 >> Oh, yeah, it Okay, so >> by 172684. This will bring it down to from that. >> Okay, so it'll bring it down to >> Let me math that for you real quick. So it'll bring it to 108684. That we're approving >> also anticipate a reduction of 130 or
007is that >> That is So yes, so we were able to save 130,000 in the permit fees as soon as it gets approved, but that's the anticipated savings that we'll have on the previous projects, so that'll >> So then bringing that down to 108, but saving 130, then we're not over budget? >> We're not over budget. We're still a little bit over budget on the first set of projects. So, Lakeland High School, Lakeland Middle School, John Brown, we were still over on that. >> Okay, we're not talking about that though. We're talking about the parking lot. Right. Okay. That's all I want clarification on. I get what you're trying to say. >> Okay. We were able to find that salvage by reducing some of the curb lengths, taking out um in some of the landscaping,
008there was some boulders and stuff like that. Um and so being able to take that stuff out. We did have some bid alternates to put in parking lot lights. Um there are not currently parking lot lights at Lakeland Middle School. Um that would be $80,000 to do, which would put it quite a bit over. So, that's always an option for the board to approve that if they would like to put the lights in. We do have the infrastructure going in for conduit for the lights in the future if we decide not to move forward with that bid alternate. >> Okay. Is that >> It's in the bid tabulation. I apologize. I didn't call that out so so much because we were over budget. And then I I if you're looking at the bid tabulation, the
009second item that's on there, that alternate two, is to help with uh the concrete that needs to be redone there. Um that will be paid with funds from the surety company. So, we just were getting it priced out from if there was already going to be a company potentially on site doing work for the parking lot. Um so, that alternate two would be paid with a different source of funds from surety if and when we get the information back from that company. >> So that alternate two, the removal of the sidewalk, the written number $30,147 does not match the $13,147. dollars. >> Um, which company were you looking at? >> Juno. >> I apologize. Uh, which sheet are you looking at? >> Page 12 of 20. >> I mean, my computer does not like me
010this week. Um, so it doesn't want to open anything. I apologize for the delay. >> [clears throat] >> Wait. Um, we were not considering the bid alternate two right now. And so we did seek clarification. I just didn't get a response yet. >> That was the demo portion? >> Yeah. >> They screwed up when they wrote it in, but it was informational only. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Tim. May I answer any additional questions? >> Um the recommendation is for board approval [clears throat] of the base bid awards. Um >> There are two separate bids. So, bid package 21 and bid package 22. So, we're just asking for approval on the base bid which um is just the the parking [clears throat] lot um and the associated landscaping that goes with
011it um in curbing. >> Which one's that? >> They're They're It's the following two together. >> Uh number two is the landscaping and yeah, the overall uh and then number one is the one that has um the concrete and the alternate bids and blah blah blah. And that was the one I think that she's referencing the savings they went through and got found the additional savings on top of but in the end it all washes out. So >> So, So bid package 21 was the earthwork and asphalt and bid package 22 was the site concrete which there's some [snorts] site concrete unrelated to what needs to be replaced for the surety work. >> Correct. So you're asking for [snorts] bid package 21, >> [cough and clears throat] >> the earthwork and asphalt to be approved?
012>> And bid package 22. So the base bid in both of those we're not asking for the alternates of this plan and time. So the base bid would be to complete the project. Alternate one on bid package 21 is the lighting to put lights in in the parking lot and alternate two is just an informational item only related to fixing the concrete that needs to be fixed related to that poor performance of that previous contractor. >> [snorts] >> But there's no recommendation for the subcontractor. >> Oversight on my part. So uh Five Star Concrete would get bid package 22 and then Liberty Landworks would get bid package 21. >> Why are they so much lower? >> Uh there are some reasons behind that. Um >> That's I mean that's a lot. >> Prevailing wage is
013one. Um one Tim, would you like to address that? >> [laughter] >> Yeah. Tim Higgs, Facilities Director. Um Interstate Concrete, they're they're prevailing wage mostly. Uh they're union shops. We always expect their bids to be well higher than above. Uh Liberty Landworks is also the company that won the city bid. >> So they're doing >> So they'll be doing this one. So they bid it less knowing they're already in the mix as well. >> Okay, got you. All right. >> So there is definite justification >> behind >> Yeah, usually that's a bigger flight. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then I just want to make an annotation so I can You said alternate one was for something. >> Parking lot lights, okay. Cuz I thought Yeah, I was trying to remember what this is when I
014got it. And what was number two? >> Alternate two was the tear out and replacement of the concrete work that was done at Lexington Middle School that needs to be corrected. Um we're waiting on confirmation from the surety company. They sent a third-party consultant out to inspect all of the sites. Um Tim got to spend almost a whole day with that individual walking through the project scope. Um and we're just waiting to hear back on their >> Yeah, do we think they'll all be covered? I mean it should be, right? >> In theory. >> Yeah. Okay. >> He had a lot to digest, is what he said. >> Okay. All right, so then >> So how much was initially approved for this project? >> $509,600. >> Yeah, $509,000? >> Yeah, $600. Um and just reminding
015the board that that was the amount that was done in December of 2024. Um so we're working off of some older numbers, unfortunately, related to these projects. >> And that gave us 228, so 229 over, but then when you found the savings >> So I if we were to do the no alternate bids, uh we're currently over 170, so on page >> Four. Um we're currently over 172,684. Um there is some contingency built in there built in there that if we don't utilize it, it would go back in. Um we were able to take another 64,000 off of that based on some adjustments in the design. Um so able to save some money with that process as well. Um so that brought that down to 184. >> So um I guess I'm trying to understand
016what we've got going on here with in our documents. Um your building project original budget, actual bids, variance, etc. I see that that makes sense. Sort of. Um we don't have the bids, correct? >> They're attached. >> That's okay. Um >> So starting on page >> Okay. >> Starting page nine are the bid forms from the different companies. And then the drawings for the project starts on page 21, but I believe it looks like our clerk had to separate my packet. Sorry. >> It's okay. We got it as there. >> I've got to figure out what the file in my hand is. >> Okay. >> Yeah, that's curb. >> Okay. >> I was trying to figure out a word. >> Okay. >> It looked like cash and I'm like, what? >> No. >> And it's
017I think he meant to spell curb, but he didn't spell it correctly. >> the because that individual one was actually disqualified that bid because you cannot say you're not going to do something um as part of your bid response. You have to bid the whole project or you're disqualified. >> Disqualified? >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, that's why on the bid tabulation sheet you'll see that that has been that has been struck through. >> And it says DQ. >> And and it's been DQ'd because you can't not bid the whole project. >> Okay, so all this is just the base bids. >> Um and the alternates are in separate um on on in the same packet but on separate line items. Yes. >> [snorts] >> But I mean you your recommendation is just to
018approve the base bid only. >> I just want the base bids approved. >> Okay. Okay. Um and then I'm going to ask you one more time cuz I didn't get that written down here. What was the current savings that you said that you guys went through and found another >> Uh 64,000. >> 64,000. >> There's always potential for more as we get through this. But with the CMGC model we go with the guaranteed maximum price so that we're get they're guaranteeing it's not going to go over that amount. Um they even built in a contingency in the instance that we have to fix something. Uh if the contingency's not used it's made available for future projects. It's not like they get to keep it. Um >> So, >> the total that's presented to the board
019does include the drawing fees cuz they're that were not part of those base bids. So, that that's why if you add up the base bids it doesn't exactly match because we have the the drawing fees that are architectural fees for the plans and then we have the CMGC um amount in there and then there were um a couple items that weren't part of the base bids that are just they weren't large enough to go out to bid. They they went out to bid but not fully out to bid. So that's why that that amount is the full guaranteed maximum price for that project. >> So we have guaranteed maximum price so we won't have a bunch of um >> Right. We We have >> change orders and >> Exactly. Mhm. >> Okay. >> With a
020small contingency to build in in case we do need a change order for something that was unexpected. Like if they get in there and there's a leak in the underground pipes in the parking lot, we have a little bit of money to take care of that um without having to go back and say we need more money. Thank you. >> Okay, so that is this number correct? The total difference between the original approval and the bid today is the 178 2684 or that's it's 108 because >> 108 because of the 64,000. Like I said, when we we this bid was opened on Monday and when it came in over, we we knew we needed to get the packet ready for the board um so that you guys have the information um and we asked both
021the CMGC and the architect to go back and see where we could find some additional savings. Um [snorts] and so through their due diligence, we were able to scope out another 64,000 that we could take it from it. >> Okay. So the bids the bid amounts of the 107 11250 for Five Star Concrete >> Mhm. >> and the bid amount for Liberty Landworks of 284026 >> Mhm. >> And we're not doing the alternates. >> Right. >> How is that going over what was budgeted? >> As I just explained, we have the value engineering, the the plans, the CMGC fees, and there's a couple items that were not part part of those base bids because we got quotes on them cuz they weren't high enough amount to bid out. And so all in all in to
022do that project as planned out without the alternates, that's the the total. The CMGC [snorts] contract was approved previously. Same thing with our the architect. And so we have to include those fees in with this this amount that we're presenting you to show the whole true cost of the project. >> And I understand that and I do appreciate that. But this the confusion, I guess, is you know, on the board request item, you're being very honest there. And then we have attachments and you can't get the attachments to equal anything with what's So that's where it's just a little confusing. >> Right. Um I can definitely put a copy out in there that includes the architectural fees, value engineering, um what not. Maybe we could break it out into a separate line where you have
023the base bids and then these additional costs. Um just be happy to do that in the future. >> So was there already work done or and this is what's left of it or um >> This is the total cost of the project. So the work that has been done so far is the the design and site plan, um working with ITB and uh engineering to get the plans done and then the cost of so that's the architectural value and engineering the surveying work that needed to be done to go with it and then the big process through the CMGC that's also completed. So what is left to be spent is the actual cost of >> Right. >> the asphalts and landscaping. >> I think that part and that Chair Michelle is getting that is that
024the total that was approved was the 509. The bid is for 284. So there's $225,000 >> [clears throat] >> Is is that what you're seeing or I'm not sure? >> Yeah, no. What I went through on the bids we've got 284026 and the 10711250 and then we also have this couple of little outliers. >> Mhm. >> Um but it all totals under what was approved. But yeah, we're going over Um and I understand why we're going over. >> Mhm. So what was your total? With all those that you said you had? >> So >> I I thought you were looking at the >> I I was. >> It's $291,138.50 if you're just looking at the base bids. And then >> 391 uh 13850 and then if you add >> [snorts] >> Yeah, we should have
025we really should have a breakdown of actual bids in the the breakdown the full breakdown of the the 655 281. 281 because even if I add in the 65580 and the 42925 which was on additional uh bids for the same companies, it still brings us to 499 643 50. So, that's still below the 509 600. And my only caution is that this is what we're telling the public. >> Right. >> And we're not giving them the whole picture. >> Yeah, they don't have the backstory for that. >> Right. True. >> It does include the survey work, the engineering, the planning. I mean, there's quite a bit that goes into putting a project like this together. >> Absolutely, but we should have estimated values on those. Do we not? >> I can get them for you.
026They're all tied into that number. >> And in that I do understand, but there's nothing to support that number. >> Cuz yeah, cuz we're we're calling out the bids that were that you're recommending on the Five Star Concrete and the Liberty Land Works. Which as stated, don't total the actual bids that are shown in your recommendation. So, that's what's It's like, okay, where's that other >> Right. >> When's our next meeting? The 4th? >> No, it's the 20th. I'm looking at the 4th. >> It's the 20th. >> Huh? >> We actually have >> Oh, we have one on Monday, the 14th. >> Yeah. >> We have a lot of them. >> We have an IBB workshop and we'll probably have a an executive session right before it. >> So, you have all that stuff done
027by the by the 4th. >> Um, >> 10 I The person that I need to work with is on vacation. >> Oh. >> Well, maybe somebody they can send you the outline of it or whatever. What What is the difference so we can get that on record so we know what the number is so we can just see that number. >> It would be the 655 280 minus the 107 112 50 and the 26. >> And the 46. >> I have no idea what this 64 >> Right, 26,000 in savings. But we have 64, sorry. >> Well, I mean, I believe we could approve the bids specific to Five Star Concrete um and Liberty Landworks with the dollar amount if we so choose to. >> Yeah. >> I mean, we could do that and then
028>> So that we're not stalling the process. >> The other ones were previously approved. They're just not called out and I could definitely bring that back as an informational item if you'd like because the architect fee and everything was previously approved when those contracts were awarded. >> No, I understand that but >> They just aren't included. I mean, we don't see the breakdown and we just want to provide that. So I would move that we approve the bids for um Liberty Landworks the base bids for Liberty Landworks and of $284,026. >> Yes. >> And the Five Star Concrete for 107 112 50. >> Second. [clears throat] >> So we have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Hearing none, the motion carries. >> Excuse me, Board Chair
029Thompson. Before you guys move into discussion items, can I just clarify was there supposed to be any post executive session action items? >> Only the second executive session? >> No. >> Did you need board action? >> No. >> Okay. No, I just I wanted to clarify. >> Yeah, I I mean >> We did have action the first one. >> We did. >> The first >> We did. >> Yeah, that's okay. That's what what I was not aware of. Okay. >> Yeah, not. Um I was curious. I got pulled up here. Hold on. I'm still on the bids. Um Executive bids. Where is it? Oh. >> Are they going to fix the rerouting all that this summer? Is that what they're going to work on? That would be so nice. >> If I can get it
030all approved. >> Okay. Yeah, people got really frustrated today. >> I I won't make another motion, but I would ask that the alternate bids, when you bring the other items forward, if you could bring those back with clarification for what they would be and where that's going to mark project in its entirety, that would be helpful. I would like to see the lights get put in in the parking lot. >> Um and >> Um >> there is another bid package bid package 23, which was under the threshold for bidding. That That's where we got to the 80,000 for the parking lot lights because that was the electrical to run it. Um so the alternate bids that you see were just for the earthwork and the the asphalt for that. And then there was another quotation
031process that was done to get the the cost of the links in there. So, I can definitely bring all that information. >> Yeah, that would be great. >> That would be great. >> Yeah. >> Okie doke. Do we put it on our May 4th? Uh I don't know if she has time, but >> I will do my best. >> That might be a lot of paperwork. >> Yeah. >> I mean, if we've we've approved the bids, they can move forward. >> All right. >> Can they not? Is that correct? >> Um >> Because what you're telling us is that everything else that is pushing us over is already been approved. >> There are some other miscellaneous components that are in that, including the contingency, that was not approved. So, if we have any And they're
032not going to start work till school gets out, so it's fine to wait till the 20th. >> Perfect. >> That's why I was wondering. Just making sure. >> Okay. Um no other action items. We can move on to discussion items. We have the staffing planning uh for the '26 '27 school year. >> Okay. Um Superintendent Interim Superintendent Nappi could not be here. Um he has provided a letter, and I'll read it out loud for you guys. Um Okay. Basically, it says, "Trustees, um thank you for your understanding about my absence this evening. I know that HR Director Cunningham and CFO Grant them can speak to these matters in the level of detail required to give the whole picture um to the board in my absence. Ultimately, the issue starts with the fact that we need
033to better define our staff according to House Bill 728. The reason why this is a big impact to our school is that we do not receive the same funding or or positions that fall into instructional support staff category. Below you can see a brief overview of the categories that are now in play. Administrators are fully funded by the state. Instructional support staff, not directly funded by the state, these [clears throat] positions do not factor into salary based apportionment. These positions are not eligible for the career ladder aid from the state. We could we would still have to honor our own salary schedule per the contract we issue. Then as for teacher, they are funded by the state. Positions are used to calculate salary based apportionment. Teachers are eligible for career ladder and aid. There are
034two areas where this impacts us. Principals' assistants or PAs and other staff on a teacher contract who do not have a class assigned to them. There are 13 of these positions in total and eight of them are PAs. Elementary specialists including advanced ALP teachers. Uh for the most for most of the specialists including ALP, we have a simple solution to the problem such as making sure to assign a roster of students so they can fall into the teacher category. For PAs specifically, we have a choice to make. We can keep them in the current instructional support staff category and understand our funding will change or we can move them to the administrator category and recoup at least some of the cost of the position. To reiterate what I have shared previously, the principal assistants are
035instrumental in our school improvement experts in daily operations. Whatever is decided, it is absolutely critical to me that the function of the program including all positions, stay intact as it is right now. There are pros and cons to adjusting PAs to be assistant principals. It is a significant public perception concern that we are possibly adding principal positions to the district, even though we're simply renaming, recoding an existing position. When there is scrutiny of our district over administrative costs. On the other hand, moving PAs to assistant principals would be in better alignment with their current roles in the school, allow them to operate with the authority as an administrator, and recoup some of the funding we would receive from the state. Ultimately, it is my recommendation, Mr. Massey, is to move forward with adjusting PAs to
036APs. If the board is more comfortable with not making any big changes now, that adjustment could be made next year on or on another timeline. For now, I recommend at least changing Lake Middle School PA to assistant principal to honor the actual workload and job responsibilities of the staff member. >> Thank you. I mean, well, I mean, that's a lot of input. I don't I don't have any input one way or the other right now. I need to look all that up and digest all that information and um >> Yeah, we can't make a decision. I mean, it's a discussion item anyway, so it's not >> Yeah, I mean, I don't have any input. >> Digest some of this, yeah. >> We know why he wanted this just to be discussion when he's making a
037recommendation. >> I I think it is for you guys to be able to digest it, and they and and he is not here, and so if you want to have more discussion or have it as an action item um at the next board meeting. I mean, >> It can potentially I mean it's going to have a budget impact either way. So knowing before the budget needs [clears throat] to be published is something. So just having it on your radar. We did briefly discuss this at the legislative update meeting that we had last week. Um this this impact this is just more information as we've been able to dive in and see how it truly impacts the district. Well, respecting what it's going to cost the district to move one way or the other I think
038this information we need to have is so >> Yeah, the only thing is yeah. Well, and this is it's just >> It's nice to have something and not have to make a decision right now. >> Right. To think about it and maybe we can problem solve and you know, throw some ideas out. >> I think the biggest thing that we wanted to reiterate is these positions that are in these instructional support staff roles are so vital to the success of our schools. Um they really truly are and so we're not recommending a change to any of these theories that we just it's just a change in how the state would like us to view them. And so that's the biggest thing and we have a couple avenues that we can go with the PAs but
039we're not advocating in any stretch of the imagination to eliminate any of these positions. >> Right. Yeah, he had I didn't get that [clears throat] from what you said. No. But it would be nice to know the dollars because what is the state dollar you know, putting a dollar on >> I can I can tell you uh >> I it's better >> Yeah. I can write it out for you [laughter] but we did do some of that last >> believe I won't remember that. >> Nope, you're fine. >> Yeah, and then the other thing I guess I would have a question of is um You know, I said he did say I guess maybe I need to think about it more but cuz he did say they would be they would be classified as teachers.
040>> Right. >> But they're assigned students. Okay. >> So if you read the statute the way that the instructional support staff definition reads, it is a teacher on a teacher contract who is doing other duties assigned aside from teaching. So, that's like your mentors, your curriculum coaches, principal assistants, things like that. >> Right. >> They are they're still they're still holding a certain teacher certification, an Idaho certification. They're just doing other duties that doesn't happen in the classroom. >> Mhm. >> Um but requires the expertise. Yeah. Well, they're that's a pupil services. Um so, they didn't make a distinction there. It's literally the that instructional support staff. Um >> Okay doke. >> Yeah. >> I suppose we would need to have a better understanding of what the instructional support staff people positions are um just
041because I know within the negotiated agreement we finally got it in there. It's all certified staff and discovered that it covered more than teachers. So, >> Yeah. And this definitely they're all certified teachers >> that are in these positions. >> No, I understand that. >> Yeah. And like Mr. Matthiola does who we have very simple solution for some of them. They I mean, really it's we have these specialists and our ALP teachers that they're doing that work. They're teaching children. Um that's their primary role. Um they've been considered instructional support staff by the new statute definition, but the simple change is instead of maybe having the elementary teacher provide all the grades that that teacher will now have a roster of kids and provide the grade for that roster of kids. So, that's that takes
042care of that problem. >> Appreciating this the simple solution, um we should still look at the dollar amounts for all of it. Is there any further discussion on this? >> No, I think that the information is just providing all All positions and a comparison of of either choice of or all all potential options for >> Right. Then I guess my other question would be, so when we what what contract do they use now? >> Right now they are on a teacher contract. >> the state. >> And so but I mean their duties that they are performing right now are that of an assistant principal. Basically, I mean they're they're handling a lot of the disciplinary stuff and behaviors that >> Yeah, I just wondered what contract we were eating. >> It's It's a teacher would
043still be a teacher. >> It's currently a teacher contract and so with this change just to recoup at least some funding, they would be placed on an administrator contract and on the administrator salary schedule if you were to totally go that model. He's not recommending all of them be going over to that model. He's only recommending one at this point in time because it is solely in the game once again, the legislator legislature game has changed and we're having to try to figure out how to how to do this at this late date and this way if we just did one right now and then the others we kind of keep the same for the year, then come March we can maybe do some better planning on this. >> And did this I can go
044but this didn't have like an out in the future application. It's literally July >> It's July 1st. >> Oh wow. Okay. >> So we're getting to re-code a bunch of things in the system. >> Okay. I was hoping that there was a lot of other stuff they gave a couple of years >> reason or some of these they do [clears throat] it like right now. >> And to me this would be one of those they added later. >> of documentation is great. And like the conversation is like in some districts this isn't a problem because they just don't have the funding and then in bigger districts it's not a problem because they have these behemoth budgets and they can just make it work. We're kind of in the middle where we're we're right on the
045cusp of teetering either way and so it does have an impact on us more so than other districts. >> Okay. Okay. Our conversation. >> Nope, I'm good. >> Okay. The second discussion item is that excuse me, the June 3rd special board meeting conflicts with Lakeland's graduation. >> Aren't we terminating that meeting? >> Yeah. I think that sounds like a great plan. >> [laughter] >> We have to be at the graduation, so. >> All right. Problem solved. >> Now, does it conflict with our other date? And the other or no, our graduations are all within the first couple of weeks. >> We have graduation on the 2nd, on the 3rd, and then on May 29th, which I was bummed cuz they wasn't in May in the beginning and I could go to it, but now it's
046during my conference, so I can't go to it. >> Okay. And those will all be put Do you see them on the board calendar? >> Yes, Sarah's put them on the board calendar and she sent us a text message or an email that >> Email. >> Yeah, I don't know why mine aren't showing up. Huh. Okay. >> Yeah, I told her to put them on there. And she did. She's quite prompt. >> I'll try. >> Yeah, I just I don't I don't see any of them on >> I'll resend the um email to you about >> you don't have to send me the email. I have thousands of emails. It [snorts] has to be on my calendar. I don't know why it's not showing up. I'll figure it out. >> All right. Is there um
047that's it. So, on that note I'll mistake. >> All right. >> We'll go ahead and join the meeting. It is 8:58. That was good.