001Hey, it is 700 p.m. Today is Tuesday, August 12th. We'll go ahead and call the meeting to order and we'll start with the pledge of allegiance. >> Ready? Begin. I pledge algiance 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. >> Okay. Um, any changes to the agenda, Dr. Finch? >> No changes. >> Okay. Communications. >> You might want to start with uh excusing James Tark from tonight's meeting. >> All right. Thank you. Um, we need a motion to excuse Mr. Keepart from tonight's meeting. >> I'll make a motion to excuse James Keard. >> All right, we have a motion to approve Mr. Keepart from tonight's meeting. We'll go ahead and vote. All those in favor
002signify by saying I. >> I. Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Mr. Keepart's excused. 40. Next, we'll get down to communications there. Dr. Finch. >> Very good. At the schoolboard meeting on July 22nd, a community member commented regarding prayer at schoolboard meetings. And the response is that case law has addressed this request, pointing out specifically the request to use the public comment section of a schoolboard meeting for a public prayer. In this ruling, the court made a distinction between a schoolboard meeting and other meetings such as a meeting of the state legislature. The court wrote that the public comment section of a schoolboard meeting cannot be used for quote the creation of a de facto opening invocation during the public comment period. Close quote. And that concludes the public uh response to public comment. >> Okay.
003Thank you. And we're at that point in the agenda. Um public comment on non-discussion agenda items. And just the reminder that members of the public who would like to provide public comment will sign in if we have any. Speakers will be called in order that they signed in to speak. Speakers will be given three minutes for their comments. Public comment is not the proper forum to address concerns about a specific staff member. If a person has concerns about a specific staff member, they should make an appointment with the superintendent to address their concerns. So with that, uh, do we have a list of any kind? Uh, no one signed in. >> All right. Is anyone here in attendance willing to speak or would like to make any comments? If not, I will close the public
004comments on non-discussion agenda items. Moving on to discussion items. Looks like we have a couple there. The budget 202526 all funds and long range facilities planning. So, um, we'll start with a. Any comments or discussion with the budget? Second hearing, I guess. >> Okay. presented it uh for the first reading at our last board meeting and there's been no changes since that. Uh we did have a public uh hearing as part of the last board meeting and there were no comments during the public hearing. We do have Sheila Wood here is director of finance is available if there's any questions you might have on it but there's been no changes since the first reading. >> All right. Thank you. Anybody? Okay. Next we will go to item B on discussion items long range facility planning.
005Again, similar to Dr. uh Finch's comments, we did have some discussion on this at the last meeting. Um but again, it's here. So, I think >> discussion for the board and then there'll be an opportunity for comment after. >> Yeah. So, at the last meeting, I think we were waiting for comments from Mr. Kefart. He's not here today, but I understand he submitted a sheet. Um anyone care to read that? Anyone? >> I have it. Do you want to read it? You want me to read it? >> Sure. I'm I'm still gotta wear my glasses. You got yours on. Anybody can read it. I'll be glad to read. >> I have some updated comments separate from this. >> Okay. >> Um the reading is from James. I agree or disagree with it. I'm sure. Um
006I'm very sorry I could not make it tonight. As I have thought through this, I believe our best chance of passing the school bond this upcoming year is to defease the remaining amount of the leftover bond money from 2019. Regardless of the money saved during the construction of some of you and Apple Valley Elementary School and good fiscal responsibility, some of the perception from the public has been that the money saved should have been returned to the taxpayer. For that reason, I believe uh many of those people will vote no on the new bond. Considering that we chose to move ahead with the junior high projects last meeting, there are probably unforeseen cost and inflation increases in those jobs since the quotes are two to three years old. I think we need to make sure
007that we know what those cost increases are and hold back that additional amount and then defease the remaining balance of the bond funds. Uh estimating that balance between 7 and a half and 9 million. Another obstacle fighting against our future bond is the current uh state of tax increase in Washington state. This year we have had a 6% per gallon increase in the gas tax. Sales tax now applies to other services like IT services, advertising and security service where it otherwise did not apply. Uh capital gains and estate taxes were increased plus a slew of other taxes that would take too long to list here. Locally, the city of Yakimma has placed a $6 million property tax levy on the November ballot for 2025 for our West LA families that live in the city limits.
008This would place an additional 50 cents per thousand of property value. Because of the tax temperature in our communities, I think we need to postpone the public vote of the bond until fall of 26 at the earliest. This would allow our people to adjust and see where many of these other tax increases affect their lives. I know that having the bond now would equal an equal trade for trade and the drop of the high school bond, but a failed bond would take longer to recoup the losses. >> Thank you for reading his comments. And with that, I'll open it up for other board members who have comments and things they would like to say. Mr. Wilcott, I think you indicated you had additional comments. >> Yeah, and I can't remember if I passed this out
009last week. This is actually a little different than last week. just some numbers that I I thought through and uh I think we talked about it a little bit last week, but um so I did a couple scenarios on where we're at financially and the top one, you know, we had excess 2019 bond funds of 19 million. Um we spent, these are all round figures, we spent 8 million. Um the excess bond funds according to Dr. Finch's memo July 8th were 11 million. Uh the press box was budgeted 370,000. We still needed to pay that. The two junior high projects uh 1.4 million. I agree with Mr. Keepart that the updated quote to be higher. And I have another comment on that. So that brings the excess bond funds to 9.2 million. Um, Joe Connley
010knows that I'm digging into all these numbers and I don't know who told him, but he invited me to coffee yesterday and we had a good conversation. So, he changed my mind a little bit on some things because I was hanging right around the eight or nine, you know, maybe 9 million um, defeasement because I felt like back in the when we had all the discussions two and a half, three years ago that we ended up with we're going to spend 13 and we're going to defeat six. So, in my mind, it's always been we have to defease at least a six because that's what we said and I think we need to keep our word. Um, since we did save money, I would love to see us be able to defease more to tell
011the public like, hey, look, we were able to save some money, defease more, and keep this whole new bond separate from the old defeasement because that was just that's an issue that we voted on back in 2019. After talking to after talking to Joe, I I really understand, you know, some of his comments on we just, you know, we have to get a new RFQ for the uh two junior high projects because this is an old bid. So, we have to get that and wait till the new bid comes in. Could be significantly higher, might not be. We just don't know. So, a couple options would be wait till the bids come in, but that could be passed when we want to press forward with the new bond and it might get confusing because if
012we waited till the bids come in, then we know how much actual money we would have remaining. Um he he sort of assured me that he said if we did like seven a.5 million like right now to fees that that would give us plenty of money to do the whatever the junior high was raised to do and and leave some leftover for some other projects. And so I know he was real and I trust Joe and he was real comfortable with that number. Um I'm not prepared at this point without more discussion on making a motion to that. But um that's just some of my thoughts so far. Okay, Mr. Hay, any comments? >> I think as I I stated before, my greatest value is to defease as much as possible while still honoring the
013projects that we said that we would greenlight. And so, whatever that number is, um I think we need to honor both words, saying that we would uh take the projects and make sure that we cover those as well as the fees as much as possible. I would caution Mr. Capart as he's not here but um one of the things that we heard Mark on the long-term planning facility is I recall that there's a November date 2026 that's very specific for filing. Do you recall that? >> Not exactly but >> for filing what? >> For filing the bonds >> we have to So if you're going to run a bond in February you have to you have to have the resolution in November. Not 2026 2025. No, but there's like a there's even more. There's a
014specific like $3 million day um that if we get it in a specific time frame, do you recall this? >> Yeah, that was >> that's different. Yeah, go ahead. >> Yeah, that was talked about at one of the meetings of the long range facilities plan, but then when they went back and looked at the actual >> Oh, was it? >> Yeah, they that's actually not the case. >> Okay. Okay. That was Sorry, I was operating off of faulty information. >> Yeah, that's just some that was that was old news. uh when they looked at the actual numbers on the matching funds uh and they ran the numbers again um there wasn't that window >> okay okay my apologies >> no then other than that I had no no concern >> okay and yeah I do
015kind of remember now that discussion it was on the matching fund so I got a little bit thrown off by your comments but I'm following you now >> matching funds okay >> yeah that makes a difference I get it now um It doesn't matter. I can go ahead or Mr. Turner, you want to I'm I'm still where we were where we left off. We talked about the feasing about the $6 million. I think at I agree with Mr. Walcott here. At a minimum, that's what we need to do. I would say let's do that at an early point. While we can't we can always maybe go back and try to give more back, but I think it'd be a little premature to try and give too much back because we really don't know what those
016costs are going to be. The last thing I want to do is, you know, go to the public, ask for them to support the bond, then we turn out we're going to need even more than we anticipate. I think we play it safe. You know, protect, you know, the integrity of our our budget process. We can defeat $6 million is nothing to ste. I mean, we're giving a lot of money back. So, um, I'm comfortable with that. And, um, I just think the work of the long range facilities committee was outstanding. It was a great job. was was well conducted. They came up with an great product and I think we should honor their effort and try to do as best we can by them. So I mean after all those individuals that were kind
017of hand selected, volunteered and put in a lot of time and energy into giving us a project or a product that we can use for future guidance and I think we should kind of honor that. So that's kind of where I'm standing. >> Yeah. I mean, um, I just think about think about what I heard this evening and what's different or what's changed. Um, let's talk about what I think is what's the same with maybe one dissenting opinion at this moment. What I think is the same is there was consensus that the four the four of us that were in attendance of the meeting um like the product of the of the long range facilities plan which calls for a bond resolution to do all of these various projects the the uh middle school and
018Mountain View and and a few other things. Um, it was a laidout plan where uh it was suggested that that some of the uh excess bond proceeds from the last bond be used so that we could get started on those smaller projects now to uh minimize cost inflation in the future. Um I haven't heard anything different tonight. Um despite what Mr. Keepart says the longer we wait the more expensive this is going to be. Um number two um I think we're still trying to work through what is the appropriate amount to to fees. Um um I I still I mean I've been doing a lot of thinking about not that uh not that I'm stuck on $6 million, but it it follows through on an earlier board's promise for 6 million. It allows for us
019to uh as I said in the last meeting really take the temperature of the community because community forum is going to be a great litmus test in terms of some feedback and obviously we don't want to run a bond issue if we don't think it's going to pass. It's a lot of work and and and I fully understand that. But >> um if it passes, we need we we need to retain that money. Um and if it doesn't pass, then the school board can re-evaluate. Okay. Well, then we'll have, you know, about five mill I believe about five million if a little over five million left to defeze and and and you can always defeat more at that time. Um um I'm I'm chewing on the 7 million or 7.5 million. Like if we had
020to do that and that was going to get it across the finish line, I'd probably go along with that. I probably go along with that but with some reservation of I want to be conservative about because once we defeat we there's no takebacks and that's so it's a little bit again I want to give as much back to to the community as possible but it's it's it's still trying to be as at prudent as possible because because it is a it is a fair point that um you know these these projects at the junior high that were originally estimated at $1.4 $4 million. Um those numbers obviously could and could be and need to be refined. Um but still even defeasing $6 million still gives us some room. I did say uh in the last
021meeting that my the way I was walking through the numbers um leaves uh a little bit of money if everything aligns. It leaves a little bit uh left for rainy day fund. That's probably the least of my like of all the things that I would like to see have happen, that's at the bottom of my list. Um, so if we have that money, great. But if we don't because we because the the approved projects like the $1.4 million can a little bit we still have a little bit of cushion and still can honor the long range facilities plan as as committed. And then and then the final part part just to kind of address um I don't want to get into a tax discussion. um about taxes in Washington and other jurisdictions and so forth.
022But again um I want to say relative to the long range facilities plan um it was very thoughtful in their approach that they wanted to come it was very and we heard from them that it was very important that they come to us with a proposal where the rate per thousand be equal to or less than what we are paying right now. If we wait, we will not have we will not be able to achieve that. Um, number one. Number two, um, again, I I'm a big proponent of the water range facilities plan, but more importantly, the people that made up that committee, I think if you examine those names and you examine the backgrounds and of those people, it's a it's it is a an impressive group of a variety of backgrounds that Um,
023we're led by a prof by a professional entity that is in that that assists districts like ours every day with these projects. It does them no good and not no good for the committee to come forward with a a proposal that they don't think can pass. So with all of those things in totality, there isn't much different than the last meeting. Maybe other than at least for me um because I I would like to I I again go back to I think the defeasence of 6 million 7 million 7 and a half mill whatever it is that we come up with that is to be celebrated and and and and will springboard us for for this and and and come at it from a positive perspective. Obviously, there's going to be hurdles from the other
024taxing jurisdictions, but um as I said uh in the previous meetings, I believe in the community to be able to sort this out and be able to say, you know what, this is a good plan that makes sense, that's fiscally responsible. Yeah, nobody likes to pay taxes. Um but but um strong public schools is essential for having a good community. we have a great thing going. Um and the facilities need to keep up with with um our educational program. So I think we all believe in that, but really there's not much difference other than I think we're closing in on that number of visas. So that's kind of my sorry for going on and on. I think and I think to your point my I think my sticking point and I'm still wrestling with is
025is the um >> is the whole thing where we came up with these list of projects for 13 million back two two and a half three years ago and you did have and it was half and half. You had community let's spend it all. Let's share let's spend none of it. Let's give it all back. Let's do a little bit in between. So we came up with that. we had our list of projects and we've saved money because I I remember clearly at the time um we can give at least six back me and I love the new plan. I think what muddied the waters for me was this this 4.9 million excess stuff that we don't want to put in the plan now. That's now been reduced at least to 3.5 or six because
026we took the junior high step out of that. We saved money on those. It's like, oh, we saved money again. We saved money on the $59 million bond, so we came up with projects. Now we save money again, so let's list even more projects. Yeah. Separate from the bond. So it's like, really? you're you're telling me you were gonna do this and now you found some more projects to spend the money on. So for for in my mind I'm going okay let's honor what we said back then. I was really thinking nine. I'm willing to compromise down to 75. So that's a little extra than what we said. It's because we did save money. I don't want to tack all these other projects on and and stick it back to the taxpayer. So that that's
027what I'm struggling with and that's I know it seems a little bit minor on the you know in the dollars that we're talking about but it's more of a principle of the thing for me >> right >> it it comes down to that like we had this list we saved money we saved money then we made a list then we save money now we're making another list let's just be done I' I'd love to separate let's defeat the money say thank you we're honoring what we said now let's move forward on a new bond that we all we all like and let's do this. Let's keep them separate. I don't want to muddy the waters with the old bond issue. >> Unfortunately, and I don't know the numbers. I mean, we would have to know
028this, but let's say you removed out the 4.9 and just said, you know, we're going to just make this all a part of the new bond. >> Yeah, >> that will increase the cost. >> Well, but the the defeasance is going to take it down at least 8 cents per thousand on top of the other. So, I don't know exactly where it does come in. I'm not sure if it does honestly because it's only 3.5. It's not 4.9, >> right? But it's only 3. >> But the whole point of the But the whole point of the as I understood it was >> it passes, we start these projects at 4.9 immediately, like next year. >> I'm going to keep pushing you to 3.6 because the other we already agreed on. >> I'm talking about the
029new bond. I'm I'm talking about the new bond >> because because again, you could defease it all. So, so again you could defease it all and say and I mean I appreciate that thinking like right so I want to separate the bonds I don't want to muddy the waters okay the counterpoint to that is that comes with the cost of okay the defeasence is what it is but it will come at the cost of the overall bond project being higher because we're not going to be able to start those projects as soon and those those those will be more expensive the longer we wait. that that was sort of as I understood it the algebra that went in or the mathematics that went into to the why going back to one of their foundation principles
030was we want to bring a proposal that we didn't take into consideration the defeasence they they were they talked about it but they didn't really have one I mean I asked that question they didn't have an opinion one way or the other So they said the the hallmark one of the hallmarks was we wanted to bring a proposal that where the where they ask what's at or below what is uh theme right now but the tradeoff to and again it's fine but the trade-off to that is going to be a more expensive bond. [Music] So, sort of what I'm hearing here, if I can maybe summarize it, maybe this isn't fair, but I'm hearing what James said, I'm hearing what Joel, I'm hearing what everybody said. And right now, I think we're at around a
0317.5. I I think I'd like I don't want to vote tonight. What I'd like to do is see get get some of these numbers tighter now that we're talking 7.5. We're saying this might be more, this might be less. I want to see what what is a even a 7.5 what does that bring at percent cents per thousand what's the what's the options of like how much more would it increase if we did that weighted it I mean that's an estimate we can't we can't know that so that's just a guess I think I need now that we're as you said now that we're sort of honing it a little bit >> well I also I also think it's really important to decide not necess or not decide by a final vote. But again, we're
032not voting on defecence tonight. That's not part of the agenda. We have no resolution before the board about that. We're having a discussion because what we're >> what the outcome of this meeting hopefully is is that we're providing some direction to administration to come back to us and we're working on that. But another really really important point and that's why I I said what's the same >> factoring in what Mr. Keart said tonight, which is his his his deal, and and and and I haven't heard anything from the four of you or three of you differently, is that he wants to run this bond at least a year from now. I don't hear agreement about that tonight. If you agree that we should not run in February, that really should be the very first thing
033that we should talk about because if that's the case, then we got a whole lot of time. We're not going to have the community form. you just you just you just push this push this down the road. Nobody wants to waste anybody's administration or anybody else's time. So I think we need to again answer the question are we shooting >> now what that bond is is still in question but are we still shooting for levy in February and bond in February? The answer is yes. >> That's one thing. And then I agree with the like can we tighten up these numbers a little bit? So we're not so I mean tighten them up still being estimates >> better. How about better estimates? >> And for me I'm a yes for February bond and the levy
034according to the long-term facilities plan. I think it's a great plan. >> Okay. >> I think you're right. We have to separate the two conversations >> or just what just make sure that we're in line on which direction we're moving because >> because what Mr. Keepart says um or what he wrote rather um is [Music] I don't think we should run the bond until a year from now at least and I just am confirming we respect his opinion on that issue. >> Um we've heard him. He's been heard but still still pointing then that direction. So the so the issues now are okay better estimate. Is it six? Is it seven? Is it seven and a half? Or is it a different number that we're going to defease this fall? >> Um that'll be um
035aided by better estimates and a community discussion. Mhm. >> Um and and then I mean I think I I also think that um we need to have Peter work with our council to start crafting a levy resolution, a bond resolution, and a um a defeasence resolution um that may be subject to some modification. >> Sure. with some numbered differences. >> So that like in around October act on that >> for a no for a October for a February ballot >> on the defeasence. There was a reason Corey had like three different dates. It's in here somewhere. >> Really? OC October would be >> is that the last? >> Yeah, October would be what we shoot for. Also, in terms of of not only the resolution, but the verbiage that would be on the bond that
036would go to the voters. I did check into there was a question that the board had. Can you make that language very specific that any remaining funds would be defeased? And the answer is yes, you can make it very specific that so we wouldn't have the same issue in the future. >> Okay. So, just a couple of other thoughts. Um, and I hear both arguments and I'm still like Mr. um, heat here and Mr. Thorner, we need to stay with February because of the timing is critical right now. Um, but I I still come back to some central points that I said even the first round when we were talking about the excess funds and that is every day, every month, every six months that we delay is cost increase and there's no projection. I
037mean, we could say at the rate things are going, it's going to increase about this month, but what if it's not that? What if it's substantially more? And I'm I'm, you know, I don't want to put a specific number on it, but I want to say is that if we talked about the feasing the $6 million, I say we're honoring our word if that's at a minimum what we do. I like Mr. Thorner's plan about we can always do a little bit more later, but to just do it just because we're doing it, it just kind of bothers me because we know we're going to have more expenses. These projects that are on that deferred maintenance list are serious projects. They're not just something that idally we just decide, oh, this can wait, that can
038wait. At what cost? They're going to cost us more to wait. And so I don't know that I'm in favor of