Check one, two. Check one, two. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we'll be going live in five, four, 3, two. All >> righty. Welcome back to the Ventur Unified School District board meeting. Let's go ahead and uh if we can, if you're able, please stand for the pledge of allegiance. Okay. Roll call, please. >> Thank you. President James Foresight >> here. >> Vice President Shannon Frederick >> here. >> Trustee Sabrina Rodriguez >> here. >> Trustee Dr.

Jerry Dannenberg >> here. >> Trustee Calvin Peterson >> here. >> And Superintendent Dr. Antonio Castro >> here. >> Thank you. All righty. Report. There are no reports to be taken to be given for close session. So, we'll move on to the superintendence report. >> Thank you, President Foresight. I actually want to ask Dr. Bales to share this round of good news about our 2026 AP advanced placement results. >> Yeah, thank you, Dr.

Castro board. Uh, at our last meeting, we had a student uh board member for BA High School talk about Buana High School's pass rates and just reminded us of the fantastic pass rates across our district that we thought we'd share. So, uh, overall a pass rate of 73%. That means students score, uh, either a three, four or five on, um, AP tests and that sets us about seven, eight percentage points higher than the national average for all test pass rates.

Um, so wide variety of um, AP passs of AP tests and I could go down the list for you, but I just globally I wanted to share a really a successful year in AP um, exams. And so just a shout out thanks to all the um the students and all the work that they did and their teachers and all of the not just the teachers of the AP classes but all the teachers before them that um created all of the um scaffolding for success in those courses.

So congratulations. >> Yeah, thank you for that update. And the board will receive some detailed information to follow. >> Dr. Bis, does that um pass rate include our middle schoolers who are taking the AP Spanish test? >> Yes, correct. And that that 73 is the is the average for all um students throughout the district, but it does include uh all test takers, including eighth grade test takers. >> Can we know what the >> Yes, the pass rates.

Uh so, um just for the benefit of the the public, we have um AP test takers for AP Spanish in our dual language programs at um um three of our several of our sites. And so those pass rates were um ranging anywhere from 15% uh upwards of 60%. So um averaging out based just quick math in my head probably in and around the um 45 50% pass rate. >> Yeah, >> it would be lovely to know that in actual numbers to like how many students passed. >> Yeah.

So, Greg, since we this isn't like a discussion item, I have all of the details. You'll get a very detailed report of that. So, thank you. Yeah. >> All right. Thank you. >> Okay. Moving on to correspondence. >> Uh again, President Forsight, in the noted on the agenda, uh the county approved our 2627 LCAP and adopted budget. Um and as they have in previous years, continue to ask us to monitor uh deficit spending and our long-term uh impacts and fiscal resolve.

Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Moving on to public comments. >> We do not have any general public comment. >> Thank you so much. Okay, moving on to public hearings. Okay. Uh sorry, I I I thought you were looking at me and you were looking at so never mind. Uh, President Foresight, uh, we could staff recommends that we open the public hearing regarding sufficiency of textbooks and instructional materials uh, for the 2627 school year.

So, if we could open the public hearing at 608, >> we do not have any requests for public comment for this particular item. >> All righty. So, go ahead and close it then. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you so much. >> Apologies, Dr. Caster. >> No, that that was me. I was off. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Moving on to our first um action item would be the action item uh request approval for proposed revisions to conflict of interest. >> Dr.

Gastro >> Anthony, this is just a routine u item. Uh we have made changes as we as required or as advised by uh the California School Boards Association and uh those changes are u are uh documented on the attached documents to this item. >> Okay. Does the board have any questions? >> If I hear none, then uh we'll go ahead. I have a motion to pass. We got to have a motion, right? >> You do. Okay. >> Yeah. Sorry. Um Anthony, it seemed like this was um kind of a significant um I would say strengthening of the policy.

Like there's there was quite a bit of language change. Um >> and that's usually what uh CSBA does is provides us any of the legal requirements that have changed over the years from our last adoption. So that's what you're seeing in the in the resolution or in the uh board policy. I'll move approval. >> Second. >> Thank you. Vote as follows. Trusty Peterson. >> Yes. >> Trusty Dannenberg. >> Yes. >> Trusty Rodriguez. >> Yes. >> Trusty Fredericks.

Yes. And trusty >> Foresight. Yes. >> Thank you. Motion carries. 5-0. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to action MB which is the B1 considering the resolution 26-28 regarding the sufficiency of um textbooks and instructional materials both or both for the 2026 2027 school year. >> Uh before we move on to B1, I think we have uh A2. >> Oh, we have A2. >> And Anthony is um on this one again. >> A2. Sorry. Go ahead. >> No worries.

This is uh um every two years we have to certify to the um the county board of supervisors uh that our conflict of interest code is in in place and uh if there's any changes or whatnot and we have filled out the appropriate paperwork and let them know. >> All right, any questions? If not, a motion to approve. >> Move approval. >> I'll second. >> Thank you. Vote as follows. Trusty Peterson. >> Yes. >> Trusty Dannenberg. >> Yes.

Trusty Rodriguez. >> Yes. >> Trusty Fredericks. >> Yes. >> And Trusty Foresight. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Motion carries. 5 Z. >> All righty. Now B1. >> And this is the one where I should be looking at Greg. Greg, can you take this, please? >> Okay. >> Yes. This is the um request for consideration of the resolution for sufficiency of textbooks. Uh this is our annual um request for um uh approval and um all textbooks are sufficient and in order. >> All right.

Any questions from the board? >> If not, I'll entertain a motion to approve. >> Move to approve. >> Second. >> Thank you. But as follows, trusty Peterson, >> yes. >> Trusty Dannenburgg, >> yes. >> Trusty Rodriguez, >> yes. >> Trusty Fredericks, >> yes. >> And Trusty Foresight, >> yes. >> Thank you. Motion carries 5-0. >> Okay. Up next is the consideration of resolution 26-30, emergency relocation of California state preschool programs.

Dr. Castro. >> Okay. Um, these next two resolutions are partner resolutions related to some localized flooding that occurred in a Jumpstart classroom at uh one of our sites at at Will Rogers. And so these are these seem and are very formal, but they're essentially just required because of all the um statutes related to um early childhood education that we have to get your permission to first relocate to another room at that same site.

Um and we have to get permission the following resolution, which I'll explain when that comes up, to close that particular classroom temporarily in order to have it remediated. So um these are just again statutoily required resolutions that we have to pass. Um we can uh if Assan can talk a little bit about the remediation process and and what we can expect in terms of a timeline. >> So um good evening board. So yeah uh there was a water leak that damaged the drywall the flooring.

Um it is causing and so we contacted our insurance. Uh there was some mold remediation work that needed to be done that has been completed. We're waiting for the inspector to come back out and test to see if there's anything remaining. Uh we got a proposal for uh it's under 25k. It's around 23,000 24,000 to complete the work in its entirety. Uh this will be covered by our insurance. We have a $10,000 deductible. So it'll fall under that.

We hope to have this work completed within a week or two and have the classroom reopen. It's a portable classroom. >> Dr. Will we see this again when they when we move back in? Do we have to do some type of resolution to move back in? >> That's a great question. I don't believe so, but it's something I can research. I don't because the licensing applied to that original classroom. Um, and given that it's just a temporary relocation, but I can get back to him that I don't believe so. >> And mine is not a question, just a clarifying statement.

This has nothing to do with school closures at all. This is This is just because there was flooding and a class needs to be >> That's right. >> I just want I just want to be clear on >> That's correct. Yep. I'll jump start will continue at Will Rogers and it's just being relocated um a couple classrooms down the down the way temporarily. >> So, the um the flooding already happened. The kids were moved. We're now catching up on the paperwork part of moving them.

Um, and then how much longer before you expect them to be back in the original classroom? >> I would say within two weeks. We received the proposal today. >> And the room that they're temporarily in, what was it? What is it normally? >> If if the room What? There are a variety of rooms that are used for um uh speech and language services uh that will just have to be relocated that aren't used full-time as classrooms.

So, no classrooms being um displaced. It's just one of the sort of the um peripheral rooms that are used for services. >> Side benefit of having extra space at our schools is we can shuffle. >> One of the few benefits >> as needed. Great. Thank you. And then procedural wise there's uh are we voting on two uh resolutions at the same time or is it one we had >> I think it's one at a time because there's >> yeah one at a time.

So the first one 2630 which we added during the agenda adoption is for the emergency relocation of that. The subsequent resolution 2631 is for the emergency closure. So this one uh is the emergency relocation. >> Okay. There's no other questions. We'll take a motion. >> Move approval. Second. >> Thank you. Vote as follows. Trusty Peterson, >> yes. >> Trusty Dannenberg, yes. >> Trusty Rodriguez, yes. >> Trusty Fredericks, yes. >> And trusty foresight, >> yes. >> Thank you.

Motion carries 5. >> Okay. Next to the next. >> Yeah. And this is that sister resolution that allows us to uh temporarily close the um affected classroom in order for remediation to occur again two weeks um and then uh back to normal after that. >> Right. Any other questions? If not, we'll take a motion. >> Um, just a question. Is this one of the roofs that we delayed um working on? >> No. >> We didn't know there were issues at all. >> This was a plumbing issue. >> Plumbing issues.

The flooring. >> Yeah. Not a roofing issue. >> Not a roof. >> Move approval. >> Second. >> Thank you. Vote as fellows. Trusty Peterson. >> Yes. >> Trusty Dannenberg. >> Yes. >> Trusty Rodriguez. >> Yes. >> Trusty Fredericks. >> Yes. and trusty foresight. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Motion carries 5-0. >> All right. Thank you so much. >> Moving on to C1, which is our business services request approval of contracts exceeding 25,000. >> Does the board Yeah.

Does the board have any questions? >> Yeah. >> Um I did have a question about um item eight. Um, and I know that because it's um a special education contract, there's a lot you can't share, but I was just curious because of the high dollar amount, is it um like a a fullear placement or is it um and or is it for like multiple students because it's obviously a significant amount of money. >> It is a significant amount of money.

In this case, it is not for multiple students. It is for one uh student and you can note the location um in the vendor contract. Um, so that is the location and >> yeah, I noticed it's a really beautiful art school out right outside of Bryce Canyon. >> Yeah. And, uh, as the board is aware, sometimes there are non-public services that can only be delivered out of state, uh, that the state can't administer. So, this is one of those cases.

In terms of the question about is this for the whole year? No. Um, right now, um, could it be extended? Yes. But right now, it is, um, uh, anticipated to go through February of 2027. Any other questions? >> I had a question about the um uh air conditioning units for food and nutrition. Um I was wondering if you could be more specific about which sites. >> So uh this is a plan to install uh air conditioning units for child nutrition kitchen at all sites that don't currently have air conditioning.

So the kitchens that do have air conditioning right now are Sunset, Wan Maria, Foothill, and Citrus Glenn. So all of the remaining would get uh units. Um and so this option was selected after evaluating the condition and configuration of our existing conditions. We got the bond team involved in it and saw if we could in install centralized HVAC systems. And I mean we could, but it would have to be it's comes at a huge cost. is approximately two million per site.

And so that would require um a lot of upgrades to a lot of infrastructure and codes that we've been grandfathered into. Um and so it would require significant upgrades to the infrastructure as it is. So this is an option that avoids that and still will allow us to cool down the kitchens. >> So at the sites that already have AC is the is it a similar >> It's the same type of >> It's the same type. Okay. Um, I mean, and the reason I think this one piqued my interest so much is having grown up in the restaurant business and having worked in a kitchen myself, it is I mean, completely unbearable at times.

So, I'm I I hope that these are effective and I mean, you understand if you're working in a kitchen that it's going to be hot and I understand that the district has also done some um reorganizing of the equipment in order to try to mitigate some of um the heat. So, um I just am really hoping that this is successful because it it can be really unbearable in those kitchens, especially if we're having students that are experiencing heat waves.

You can imagine what it is with the ovens blasting and stove tops going. And so, um even just, you know, the big walk-in refrigerators have their exhaust that heats the room as well. So, it's um I'm very happy to see that we're making this investment for our staff. >> Yeah. Thank you. Um I just wanted to um clarify for people who like might be looking at these things, you know, we we um when we differentiate between bond funds and building funds, um the building funds are the types of funds that are generated from sales, right?

Like so when we've um when we've explained to people that like if we sell you know for instance this property um that money doesn't go towards salaries can't go towards some of our everyday expenditures but can go towards upgrades to our facilities like these sorts of things. Um and then that's different from our bond funds which were things that we specifically told the community we wanted to invest in and were an an additional tax that the community agreed to for specific projects.

So, I just think it's helpful to explain that sometimes. >> And just a a clarification, we just got notification today that the state has approved the utilization of kitchen infrastructure funds for this um this purchase. So, that came in late today, but um prior to that, we were going to fund it out of the building. But >> that's even better. Free money. >> Exactly. >> Free free free. >> I I do have a question about item seven.

Now the Starlink is not to supplant right we're just um adding on to the existing infrastructure for our ISB. So is that can you explain that a little bit more in detail? Yeah. So for Starlink, this is uh specifically for in emergency situations when we lose all power, all data. This is a secondary service to allow us to continue uh having some sort of internet access >> and Assan if you can just share a little bit about there's a phasing out of existing technology and it really necessitates our ability to not be reliant upon landlines.

Um I don't know if you feel comfortable >> pots lines are going out anyways so we have to alternate replacement. We've been notified by uh the telephone company that they're phasing out the utilization of POTS lines. They're not going to be supporting our POTS lines. So, yes, it's on top of that, it's backup plan. >> Yeah, if you can move your microphone closer because it's hard to hear. >> Oh, our phone landline. Sorry. >> Sorry.

According to Thomas Pots lines, our plain old telephone system. >> Plain old telephones. >> Yeah, literally P O Ts. Plain old. This is a really good example of how educators can take something that's super basic like a phone line, a landline, and then add an acronym that everyone knows. >> That one was not us. We inherited that acronym. We don't we don't take ownership of that. >> That goes back a long way. Pops lines.

Yeah. >> Um but I want to uh since we're talking about Thomas, I just want to um share some appreciation for him because this was we only had a short period of time to respond and this ensures that under any emergency situation, we maintain communication. So wanted to give a shout out to him. >> Well, and then my other question regarding the Starlink, um can you give us a breakdown? Is this equipment? Is this install?

Is this service? Or is this all the above? >> This is uh all of the above. Yes. >> So then we should not expect the annual cost to match that. >> No, there is an annual cost here. Give me one. >> But not $136,000. >> No, no, no. I think it's uh Give me one second. Am I on the right? I'll pull that up. Do we need to explain what a landline is? >> I 25,000. >> Okay, that's what I have. 25,272. >> Thank you so much. All right.

If there's other questions, >> I'll move for approval. Second. >> Thank you. Vote as follows. Trusty Peterson, >> yes. >> Trusty Dannenberg, >> yes. >> Trusty Rodriguez, >> yes. >> Trusty Fredericks, >> yes. >> And Trusty Foresight, >> yes. >> Thank you. Motion carries 5. >> Okay. Thank you so much. County of Venturas on the California Association of Governments. Uh first read. >> All right. Good evening board. We have our county partners with uh for if you can recall we had uh we were approved for a grant uh it's called SCAG grant through the county that um gave us funding to do a lot of studies for this particular site.

So uh those studies have been completed and we're here to present the results. Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you for having me here today. Good evening. My name is Tracy McCaulay and I serve as the housing solutions director out of the county executive office. Um I want to introduce a few folks who are with me. We have Jennifer Butler who has been the county program lead and Zire Marin from Harrison Associates, the organization that put together all of the studies that you're reviewing tonight.

In the summer of 2023, the county applied for uh grant funding from the Southern California Association of Governments to really take a regional approach and try and support all of our cities and school districts in evaluating their u publicly owned property for affordable housing. I really want to thank you, your board, for all of the work you've done in the housing space. >> Oh, sorry, apologies. >> No worries. >> I just want to thank your board for all the work you've already done in the housing space and in particular for participating with the county in this study.

And with that, I'm going to turn this over to Zire Morin, who's going to present the studies that their team prepared. Thank you. >> Right. Thank you, Tracy. Uh, we do have a presentation if we could pull that up. I >> I do believe it was provided. >> Uh, give me one second. It should be on the board agenda. >> Yeah. Well, while that's pulled up, uh, good evening board members. Uh my name is Za Bin. I'm a project manager with Harrison Associates and I serve as the consultant project lead for this county and Skagg unlocking land for housing project.

Uh tonight we'll discuss how 255 West Stanley Avenue was selected for evaluation under this project. Uh summarize technical studies completed for the site and explain how findings can support the district's future decision making. And if if we could jump to the next slide, it's pretty much all the same, but uh so this work is part of the housing info on public and private lands project that is fully funded and managed by SCAG through the state's GE 2.0 program.

The the project's purpose is to help property owners understand development opportunities and identify barriers that must be addressed before pursuing housing development on their sites. Uh for this project, we began with 10 candidate sites and narrowed them down to four priority ones uh for detailed analysis and the district owned property at 255 West Stanley Avenue was one of those four selected. Uh next slide, please.

Uh this slide shows the 10 C 10 candidate sites included in the initial evaluation. Um, our team applied a uniform evaluation process to identify sites with the most promising housing development potential. Next slide, please. And this slide shows the four priority sites that advance to the next project stage. Uh, with your district making significant progress on planning and developer selection, your progress toward development readiness uh exceeded that of most other sites that we evaluated.

Next slide, please. Right. So candidate sites were scored against eight objective criteria including development capacity, market and financial factors, uh infrastructure and environmental constraints, housing need and development readiness. The four highest scoring sites advance and Stanley Avenue received the second highest score of the 10 evaluated. Uh the studies that followed are exploratory. They do not approve or prescribe any specific project.

Next slide, please. All right. So, next we'll summarize outreach and analyses completed for the site. Uh stakeholder outreach included a developer outreach meeting in December, a community meeting in January, and a westside community council meeting in February. Uh through these meetings, participants generally supported housing at the site and noted that its size could accommodate housing with uses complimentary to the region uh as well as open space.

Uh the most consistent concerns voiced involved traffic on West Stanley Avenue and potential air pollution exposure because of proximity to Highway 33. The market feasibility analysis found a potentially viable but nuanced housing opportunity. Supporting factors include strong housing demand, the sites size, and proximity to transportation and community amenities. Key considerations include zoning, infrastructure, environmental due diligence, and financing constraints.

Uh lastly on this slide, the zoning recommendations analysis evaluated three potential approaches. Uh state law pathways under AB2295 and AB 1021 uh or mixeduse zoning approaches. Uh notably the zoning study tested regulatory capacity of the site. The unit capacities detailed in that report are not a recommendation for how much housing to build and are not intended to describe the district's intended development strategy.

Um, eligibility and applicable state law requirements would still need to be confirmed as a specific project is further defined. Next slide, please. All right. The financial feasibility analysis modeled a conceptual 132 unit mixed income rental prototype on approximately 8 acres of the site uh consisting of incomerestricted market rate and one manager's unit. To be clear, the prototype that we modeled under that analysis was developed solely for conceptual planning level analysis and was prepared separately from the district's developer negotiations.

Uh the prototype does not reflect a district approved development program. Under the model's assumptions, total development costs are approximately $92 million. Baseline permanent funding totals approximately $ 33 million, leaving an estimated $59 million financing gap. Um if obtained, 4% lowincome tax credit financing could reduce the gap to approximately $48 million. Uh but that funding is not guaranteed. Uh to emphasize the figures in this report are planning level estimates only uh not a project budget.

Um additionally the report uh should not be read as an evaluation of any district agreement related to the site. The infrastructure improvement analysis found no significant preliminary barrier to connecting the site to existing water, sewer, and storm drain systems. However, examined city master plans identify existing capacity deficiencies in nearby water and sewer remains. Uh detailed hydraulic modeling, utility coordination, and project specific storm water uh design an analysis would be needed to confirm capacity required improvements and associated costs.

Next slide, please. The legal analysis did not identify a legal or environmental issue that would definitively prevent continued evaluation of the site for housing development. However, the analysis makes clear that additional project specific due diligence is needed before the site can be characterized as development ready. Uh potential next steps include a phase one environmental site assessment, geotechnical analysis related to liquefaction, a health risk assessment related to nearby transportation corridors, and further evaluation of fire hazard requirements.

The environmental studies assessment provides a planning level environmental compliance roadmap uh not project clearance. It identifies multiple potential SQA pathways. But which pathway, if any, is available will depend on the final project composition, affordability mix, site plan layout, environmental findings, and other eligibility requirements. Additional technical studies uh once a more defined project plan is available will support future determination.

And next slide, please. All right. So because the district already issued an RFP for the site earlier this year under our project we prepared a sight specific action report summarizing our study's technical findings. Uh that report was prepared separately from the district's developer selection and negotiation process. Since its drafting the board took action to advance the site's development by approving resolution 23 uh or 26-23.

Uh the board action was part of the district's independent process and is separate from the SCAK study. Our action report is intended to support implementation by organizing considerations related to financing, environmental review, and infrastructure among other items. And tonight's item is to receive and file the technical work package created under the SCAG project. Accepting these studies does not approve any additional project action.

All future implementation uh and decisions remain subject to the district's review and applicable approval processes. Uh next slide and that concludes our presentation. With that, happy to take any questions. >> Uh ultimately what we hope this would help is I know we've opened escrow on this site already. We're going through a due diligence phase with the developer. They're going to be performing their own site testing that be scheduled for this upcoming week.

Uh we hope that this would expedite the escrow process. So, uh since the agenda was made public, they've already asked for any due diligence documents that we have. So, we've um sent them all of these files already. >> Uh questions from the board. >> Um so, I did find it really interesting that um Is there a reason that you settled on the 132 units as kind of the um ballpark for your your research? >> Yeah, part of that is a function of how uh narrow the scope of this gag project was.

Uh the scope included modeling one specific development scenario. So with that, we coordinated pretty early on with uh your district staff to evaluate what scenario we wanted to arrive at. Uh through those conversations, we arrived at uh just looking at eight acres of your total site and then the eventual unit mix and income allocation structure. Um yeah, I I mean I having already gone kind of further down the road um on this, it's interesting to see and hopefully the information is useful to you all as you're looking at ways to encourage uh affordable housing on publicly owned land. >> Any other questions?

All righty. So we'll go ahead and uh take >> Yes. Your staff request action to receive the receive it. Okay, >> I'll move receipt. >> Second. >> Thank you. Vote as follows. Trusty Peterson, >> yes. >> Trusty Dannenberg, >> yes. >> Trusty Rodriguez, >> yes. >> Trusty Fredericks, yes. >> And trusty Pores, yes. >> Thank you. Motion carries 5. >> All right. Thank you, Skagg. Appreciate your work. Thank you. Thank you so much. >> All righty.

Moving on to the consideration of Enterprise Fleet Management Contract. Dr. Mzo. >> Okay. Um, we have Kate and Leo here. >> I'm sorry. Um, Dr. Merza, I'm just going to interrupt. Um, because of my relationship uh with the California School Board Association, which has an existing relationship with Enterprise Fleet, um, I'm going to excuse myself and recuse myself from the vote and the conversation, and then I'll come back in once that's done. >> Okay.

So, we're bringing this back to the board. Um, yeah, just hold off for just a moment. Thank you. Just for the general public, we don't do a lot of recusals. So, this is this is a this is new for us. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Mera, please. >> Okay. We are bringing this back to the board for a consideration. We have Leo and Kate here from Enterprise along with Marina. There were some follow-up questions that the board has or had in our previous presentation, so we hope to address those tonight.

Uh with that, Marina. Yeah. >> Good evening board members. Uh Dr. Castro, cabinet. Um we are bringing this for the second time for your review and and consideration. Uh from facilities management standpoint for our district, uh we are uh striving to achieve uh some goals with this particular contract. Most importantly, we will modernize our fleet. Uh current fleet that we have is approximately 21 years old. Uh no, approximately I mean on average.

So if you average out all the ages of our vehicles, it will be 20.9 years. Um the objectives are to enhance safety uh to improve uh reliability of the fleet to increase you know the u operational efficiency for service delivery. Also, it's great to have a modernized fleet. Um, also support environmental sustainability. Um, so it's it's important for us to actually uh be able to do that um as from from the standpoint of district and the kids and the service to the schools.

So with that, I'd like to present uh Leo Reyes and you've already met Katherine Dolan at the last meeting from Enterprise Fleet Management. Thank you and good evening. Good to see everyone again. I did bring my colleague this evening, Leo Reyes. He will be leading the conversation this evening. He has been the main point of contact for this discussion and has been working very closely alongside Assan Marina, the team and myself.

So we are going to keep previous points fairly high level today, more focused on the questions that were left from our last meeting. But if we are moving past anything um that you would like us to pause on at any point, please let us know and we're happy to uh take a moment. So, thank you. >> Awesome. Good afternoon, members of the board. As Kate mentioned, my name is Leo Reyes. I'm an account executive with Enterprise Fleet Management.

I've been now with the enterprise for a little over seven years and my role consists of working with different entities in the public and private sector that would be a potential good fit for the enterprise fleet program and bringing them on board which is how the conversation began with Ventur Unified. So thank you for having us out today. >> I think Leo if you could um sorry keep moving uh we don't want to go over the same introduction slides as far as who you guys are. uh if you go to the source well slide and kind of go over what this slide means kind of followup questions as far as what source well is uh what the process is of vetting out uh your company compared to the others um go forward from there >> yeah absolutely um so source is a cooperative purchasing partnership essentially it consists of a contract that can be piggybacked by different government entities to suffice due diligence what we're showing here with this slide side is Source's independent proposal for evaluation of 29 different fleet management leasing services.

They ranked the 29 different fleet management companies based off various aspects that are listed to the left. What we're highlighting is that enterprise fleet management achieved this year the number one ranking across 29 different companies um for our ability to partner with different entities and suffice all of their needs. Awesome. As Kate mentioned, some of these slides are going to be repaired from the last time, so we'll go over at a high level.

If you guys have any questions, feel free to stop us. Um, what attributed to that source ranking of number one is in part the customized wheel of service that we have here. Um, we dove into different aspects with Marina and Assan and the Ventura Unifi team to find where we'd be able to drive the most impact for our different avenues. Our goal here is to ultimately find the optimal time to replace each one of your individual vehicles uh with the big focus on how long you're holding them and the true total cost of ownership across the different cars.

What we put together as a baseline is the fleet profile for Ventura Unifi today highlighting some of the highle points as far as having an average holding period of 67 years as well as an average age of 21 years. like Marina pointed out uh which is where we're starting some of what that leads >> can we go back to that slide please the 67.5 years what is that again >> so that's the average holding period what it consists of is over the last 5 years you've purchased 0.8 8 vehicles per year.

If you were to continue to purchase at that rate, it would take 67.5 years to replace the 54 vehicles owned by Ventura Unified. >> And our fleet, the value of our fleet right now is 161. >> Correct. There's $161,000 worth of equity in the fleet. >> And to implement this program for the first year alone, it would be 500 half a million dollars. >> Correct. That would be the overall cost of implementing the program including the vehicle payments, maintenance, and all other aspects. >> So if this is our fleet value, so right now we can replace our fleet for $161,000. >> You wouldn't be able to replace the fleet.

That number is identifying the equity of the value of your fleet today. So if you were to sell all 54 of your vehicles, in turn, what you can expect to receive is $161,000 for the 54 vehicles you have today. Whereas the half a million dollars that you're referring to is the cost to operate the fleet for this next year, including new purchases of vehicles. >> Yeah. My question was does were we approached by any other fleet service? >> We were not approached by enterprise either. we were seeking out other companies.

So in the process, Marina contacted several different companies and engaged with them and Enterprise happened to be the one that actually was very responsive and providing us actual proposal. Um I think we emailed a memo saying we reached out to others that were not interested in providing us a proposal because of the age of our fleet and how consistently we've been replacing them. And so yeah, and so we've asked Enterprise to also provide us comparables.

In future slides, you will see that other districts they've worked with, what has been their like experience with Enterprise and what they've done with replacements and how are their costs been fared with after implementation of the replacements. Well, that's actually what concerns me because we're we're talking about a large contract and there's a lot of of other companies that offer fleet service and it concerns me that maybe our price is so far out that like other people aren't doing it because they're like, well, we're not going to offer it because it's it's not worth it.

So, when something like this happens, it kind of it raises my antenna. is like how come other companies are trying to approach us to make a half a million dollars in one year? Like what what what are we what are we missing that no one else wants to participate? >> And Assan I if I I don't want to since we're interrupting the flow of the conversation anyway. I think it would be appropriate for Marina to come back to the mic to share some of the what got us here in terms of the initial idea but then also if you can include what some of the response was is you were asking other vendors to even see if they would be interested. >> Thank you Dr.

Castro. Yes, other vendors did not want to get engaged. They're also source source well vendors. It was important to get someone from that type of contract. That's a state contract state approved. So I contacted the two Sourcewell vendors. I received a response from one of them stating that they're not interested in working with us because of the age of our vehicles. In addition to that, they did not have any representation locally like Enterprise does.

So anything would have been a logistical difficulty as far as potentially if they were even interested working with us. It would have been difficult to maintain those vehicles to coordinate uh other services uh and to m uh do purchases. Enterprise has local presence and we were the ones who were actually searching in the beginning as to who we can work with. Um I I did not get a response from this uh third company. Uh but I did contact the two of them in addition to enterprise and I do have an email response from uh another sourceful contractor saying that they they wouldn't want to work with us on this. >> So for the local for the local people, why did they say they didn't want to work with us?

There are there are no local uh companies who are comparable in in in their capacity uh to undertake this kind of large fleet that is aged and to be able to provide the same type of service and to replace our aging fleet in just an amount of few years. I mean an enterprise has the capacity to do it all at once or do it in a staggering way uh splitting like 11 10 11 vehicles a year uh and to accomplish the best efficiency that works for us for our district. >> And I'm not affiliated with Herz or anything at all.

I have no stock in Herz. But doesn't Herz have a fleet um local uh fleet operation here in Ventura? Um I have searched and to be honest with you I did not find anyone who would we would be able to contract right away because they were not on the uh they were not on the state approved contractors list like source well. >> Oh so you have to go through two hoops. First of all the person has to be on a state contract list first >> and then you have to find someone local after. >> Well uh again we we'll search locally first of course.

So there isn't a company of that size that would be able to manage our fleet. They can manage fleet for example a smaller let's say I have a business with 10 vans. Okay that that's a reasonable plumbing business. Let's say I have 10 vans with with tools and plumbers. I can have a local company and make a good deal with them. If I'm a private company, I don't have to go through all the approvals and all the hopes that I need to go through right now as a district, as a public entity and to find the right company to work with.

So in Ventura, we did look locally first. >> Thank you. >> And I think it's important to remember that the Sourcefell contract is a government vetted contract. I don't want to gloss over that. If you go back to a couple of slides, there's already 28 29 companies that were rated on including enterprise and so and it just shows you where they stand amongst different factors that they were rated in financial viability, marketing plan, uh depth and breadth of offer solutions, pricing as well.

So out of the government contract that we're using essentially this is like a piggyback uh we are stating that this company along with these others have already went through the vetting process and this is where the rankings fall and out of these particular companies enterprise is leading the way and so we would prefer if we were going to choose a vendor to choose somebody that is effective. >> Yeah. My concern wasn't their rankings.

My concern is that with this dollar amount, this large of a contract that no one else, even someone that's already been vetted, is not trying to get in on year one for a half a million dollars. That's the part that concerns me because it seems if it's profitable for enterprise, it should be profitable for another company. But seeing that no other company wants to touch it, like are we paying a competitive price? Are we paying way too much?

Like it's just it just concerns me when something this large and no one else wants to participate. >> Yeah. And I think um Dr. Ms, if we can I think that question is going to be addressed when we look at the comps um to see and then that's the board can make that determination. We think it it seems like it's it's a good deal, but the board this is why we're bringing it back for a second time so we can get more into those details.

And one item I just wanted to clarify too that we'll address in future slides is um the half a million is not what's being outwardly charged per se. That's the year one estimated budget through Enterprise. So it's accounting for what it would cost to fuel the vehicles, operate the vehicles, maintain the vehicles. Those aren't charges that Enterprise is charging. Um, and we also will look at your figures right before again so that we see what you're paying today to do the same functions and what it would look like to do so through enterprise. >> But you're not doing it for free, are you? >> Correct. >> So when you're saying the five half a million dollars, if you're paying it, we're paying it.

You're you're not putting that up that money up and not charging us. So if you're paying that amount, we're paying that amount. >> Correct. for the acquisition portion of it. Yes. >> So, we'll go over that and if we're not answering your questions again, we'll keep it open flow. So, let us know. >> Great. So, picking up where we were, um the aged fleet has led to safety being a huge topic and concern for the Ver Unified School District.

And what we're highlighting here in this slide simply some of the standardization that has come across vehicles in recent years that is lacking in the fleet just due to it being aged. All of these are now um becoming soft cost issues with the fleet that would go ahead and be addressed with enterprise as well. Um here we have a copy of the 54 vehicles that we are looking to modernize and replace. And here to Kate's point earlier is what was provided to us as far as what the uh Ventur unified has spent over the last 5 years.

Um this is in turn what rather than being spent here would be implemented into the enterprise program to do very similar actions as far as repairs, fueling um and purchasing vehicles. So on average we're looking at a high side of 588,000 in 2024. low side back in 2022 of 346,000. What we have here is the estimated cost for 10 years of a partnership with enterprise highlight highlighting at a high level um what we would be doing here is reducing the current cycle time that we had emphasized at 67 years for 54 vehicles down to a 5-year holding pattern. also modernizing the age of the fleet from 20.9 to an average of five.

Um what we take away here is just the initial investment over 10 years of 293,000 from a cash flow standpoint. Um when including the equity in the value of the 54 vehicles, it nets a savings of 152,000. >> Can we go back to your um list of vehicles that need to be there? there. What is the criteria that you're using to highlight? Because I see a 2021 with 18,000 miles and you want to replace that. Why? >> So, everything that's highlighted there is not what's slotted to be replaced.

It's some of the medium duty vehicles. Um, when it comes to the cab chassis and medium duty chassis that are going to be on a different replacement pattern than the five years just due to the higher acquisition cost, those if we go back to our earlier graph of finding that optimal time to replace wouldn't necessarily be on a 5year hold like some of the other vehicles. >> So 2021 you want to replace it in 5 years even though it has 18,000 miles. >> So 2021 because it's highlighted would not be replaced on five years because you likely had a larger market up front.

So I think the plan with this is to replace all of the vehicles. These are just the the ones that are highlighted have special considerations. >> Oh, I see what you're saying. That's what I'm getting. >> But that doesn't mean they're going to be replaced first. I think facilities department would work with Enterprise to identify like say the older vehicles uh to be replaced first. I'm assuming to and then the the newer vehicles on a later life cycle. >> Correct.

But isn't would the would the truck would that be consider considered case by case because some trucks you know will last longer than others. So are you going off of a certain criteria that's by Kelly Book or some kind of measuring device or are you looking at our specific trucks in that in this uh decommission l scenario that you have? >> Correct. So every truck is going to be identified individually based off acquisition price. um how long you've held it, taking into account three factors, the depreciation, the maintenance, and the fuel spent on there, as well as the mileage pattern.

Since different vehicles are going to travel different distances each year, every year, each vehicle will be analyzed on an individual basis. They won't be lumped uh together. >> Would that be your your person would come out to us or was that something that we have to do to notify you? >> Correct. So, um, should you come on board, you would receive a dedicated account team, which would be my counterpart plus another person.

They would come out at a minimum of three times a year and revisit this analysis and a detailed version each time. >> That would be his representative coordinating with our mechanic there currently to figure out which vehicles are needing to be replaced. If my if I may add uh president foresight um sometimes we some of these old vehicles that we have have been very well maintained and they a lot of parts have been replaced important expensive parts.

It is entirely up to us based on the individual vehicles working with enterprise to be able to replace the ones that we need to replace first. It does not necessarily equate to the age. >> Okay. Because that's that's that would be our question because some of these have been full transmission engine rebuild and even replaced right and so we invested a lot of money into a lot of these trucks >> that theoretically can last another few years >> and I just kind of wanted to see what what is the criteria why you know if if it's just based off age but it doesn't sound like it's more up to us.

It's entirely up to us working together with them >> and our mechanic >> and our mechanic and our mechanic would be able to even recite you off his his memory the list of vehicles that we prefer to change right now. I mean they're they're old, they're beat up and to be honest with you, they don't represent district very well. Sometimes you would look at our vehicles on the street and you will see >> the 1985 is not looking sharp. >> 85 is a great year. >> A great year.

The vehicles that are replaced are do they become our vehicles owned by the district or they owned by enterprise? >> Uh they are leases. They're this is the the the way to do this is to be able to maintain either similar expense or a little higher expense or a little lower expense a year depending on the situation is to be able to lease it first and use the equity from that and I think enterprise can address that. They have slides about that u on how that mathematics works.

So, Dr. Dannenberg, yeah, this would be changing our model here. Right now, we have ownership of these vehicles, right? We're spending I mean, we're not replacing them on a on a on a cycle or on a budget. We're supposed to be or we should be. That's why we have some vehicles that are here in 1985. Uh but this would be changing the concept from ownership to a leasing model. So we are expect our plan would be like a first running 588,544,000 a year just to maintain the vehicles that cost would be reduced and instead you would be replacing that with a lease cost that includes maintenance um and repairs of the vehicles.

Um that would that would take its place. >> Who's who's making those repairs? And is it is this going to displace one of our employees at some point in time? >> Uh no. Um so so the repairs do not cover brakes and they do not cover um tires. So our in-house uh person would still be responsible for coordinating all of the repairs that go out like the transmission or engine that get um that need to be replaced with Enterprise even up to oil changes coordinating that along with repairing the tires and the brakes all in house.

And I was wondering if we could just go to the next slide so I can add to the conversation. >> I just want to ask and make sure that 1985 still only has 45,000 miles on it. >> Yeah. So our we're our our vehicles here, if you could look at the odometers, I mean we're driving on average what 7,000 maybe five six thousand. It varies per vehicle. So um yeah. >> Yep. And so going to the next slide just to add to the conversation the what Dr.

Ma was saying about that it's a the model is different. We are talking about not keeping vehicles as long as we can because we want to be able to use the equity in in what would be a lease model to be able to keep those up to date because currently our replacement model um we will never be able to keep up with our current model period. Um, so at some point there is going to be we're going to need to invest additional dollars in a fleet.

It's the when. So do we want to do that later on with older vehicles that also will have less value at that point. Um, or could we do it now? And then that phases in this conversation about if you take a look at the repair, Assan addressed this, which is we're investing rather than investing in continual repairs, we're investing that money in newer vehicles. Um the other piece of that I think is we're going to hear from this which is then once we start to acrue a a more recent uh fleet then we start to increase the equity in that fleet and then that positions the district to re-evaluate that at intervals.

Um, and so the last thing I'll say is that um we you saw before that over a five-year plan, we would be looking to um uh to be able to identify and replace those vehicles that are the most uh for us probably the most uh cost ineffective um and then putting off the conversations as was stated about keeping those vehicles even whether they're older or not. Let's forget about the age. It's how um how effective um and what is the cost to maintain and keep those vehicles regardless because as we know some of us buy brand new vehicles and some of them break down immediately.

Um we know that we get new buses that are less than two years old and they break down immediately. Um and so we're not if we can just set aside for a moment like uh necessarily focusing on the age. We're talking about what is the true cost of ownership for those vehicles. And that's the the type of model that we're trying to to consider. >> And on this chart here, so fuel is not a factor, right? You're still going to we're going to pay fuel because that's our fuel.

So that's >> fuel would be a factor because newer cars are going to be more fuel efficient. >> Well, no, I'm saying on the total spend. So you're you're using you're making a chart saying this is what we spent and then this is what you're going to save. But yes, fuel prices fluctuate, but you're still going to spend whether it was 97,000 or 143,000, you're still going to spend that on fuel. But this chart is being used to kind of say what you're going to save.

But you have expenses in here that are still going to be expenses even if we go to the fleet model. So this charge, this chart, sorry, is our actuals, what we've actually spent for all of these categories in the previous fiscal years and fiscal year um 25 26. Uh >> yeah. No, no, I I understand that point, but what I'm saying is it seems like you're trying to use these numbers to say if you go fleetwise, this is what you're going to save, but you still have to put fuel in the vehicle.

So you're not going to save 97. You know, it's kind of inflated. So if you go to the next chart, I think Leo, you might be able to explain this that that fuel concept is still there. We still have the fuel cost. What we're showing in year four is a a reduced cost in fuel because of what Trustee Frederick said is that we our fleet at that point would be more fuel efficient rather than um having the older vehicles. We would have newer fuel efficient vehicles.

So we see the fuel cost. We didn't completely wipe it out. We we left it in like year four says you still have $97,000 of fuel cost. Is that correct? Am I explaining that correct? >> Correct. Yeah, that's uh absolutely the case there. So, um to your point, the numbers are not necessarily going to zero. They're simply being reduced by running newer, more efficient fleets that are going to have a higher miles per gallon.

Um we have no way of controlling the pump price. Um, but up there up top you see we used uh 450 for the bulk of the analysis just to make it as apples to apples as we could. All righty. Um, the next couple of slides are going to be some of those comparables that we were able to gather for other districts. Some local, some a little further away. But what we wanted to highlight is some of the different plans that were presented at different boards that were approved and what the spend and what the impact has been for some of our partners today.

Starting with Santa Barbara Unified prior to coming on board, they had a plan to replace three vehicles every year, but had a fleet size of 50 vehicles. Over 10 years, what they were going to spend uh based off of their projected numbers was $2.8 8 million and only replace 30 of their 50 vehicles. What Enterprise was able to show is similar to what we produced for Venture Unified. How can we replace all 50 vehicles over the course of 5 years versus their allotted 15 and what that total came out to for them specifically came out to 2.4 million um showing a savings of almost $400,000 compared to what they were doing.

Is there actual uh data not just projections that you can share of actual savings >> like savings from like Santa Barbara like a 10 Have you been operating you haven't been operating a fleet in 10 years have you? >> So we've been operating there for six years which is what this slide shows their actual numbers that we've seen shift. So we were on here what we're highlighting is we've been able to renew their fleet as far as going from an average age of 12 years to 10 able to reduce that holding period from 17 years to 6 years able to reduce their average odometer and able to increase what they were getting on the resale of the vehicles.

As far as specific specifics from an annual standpoint to what's being spent um they would have to be just requested from uh Santa Barbara themselves. So, you don't have the full savings. >> Not on a year-over-year basis, over the first six years. >> Yeah. I was just wanted to know if you had hard numbers of of those six years, what a district actually saved. >> Good. Yeah. >> Versus their fleet, having a fleet versus going with your your program. >> Yeah.

We don't have the exact number. um we asked for that number, but just with it being their data and them holding on to it, we didn't receive a response whether it could be shared or not. So that's kind of where um that exactly >> wouldn't that be your best selling point >> to operate someone wouldn't that be your best selling point to operate somewhere for six years and say, "Hey, listen over six years, this is exactly what they're saved." Like it to me that'd be the best information we could we could have. >> Correct.

It would be the best info. We did provide one of those via email where our partner was okay with sharing those specific numbers with the board. I'm just not necessarily including it here. So that should have been emailed out to you all from the Santa Barbara County. >> But when you have the numbers because like so when when you were soliciting us, we gave you our numbers. So if you solicit someone else, they should have gave you their numbers and then you would have the actual numbers by working there for six years.

So wouldn't that be something that you would actually have? >> Correct. chime in here. >> I'll speak to this because I help oversee um some of our existing clientele too. So, we we do have these figures. Um data privacy is something that we take very seriously. So, when it comes to sharing specific figures, we just want to make sure we have permission from our clients that they're okay with us sharing things that aren't publicly shared in a presentation. >> They're public they're public schools. >> Yes.

So there is no there is no privacy act because what they spend is public. So you would be able to share it because it's public information >> and everything that we've included today has been shared in their agendas or anything that's been shared in meetings. Again, they were okay with us sharing figures that they have that we have, but they just asked that we disclose those not in a public presentation setting or um formally being published, but more um in a forward to you setting, which is why we emailed it out ahead of time.

So, again, hoping that it made its way to you, but we do have that data. But um again for public presentation standpoints there are certain items such as these trends or performance metrics that we're able to share but um if not public we shared everything that our clients were comfortable with us sharing in this specific setting. Yeah, I think if we're looking at a multi- like a decade contract, it would be really helpful to have actual numbers to see what, you know, what what kind of savings a district can get, right?

Because we we have to uh you know, justify all of our expenditures, especially now because we're in a very tight budget issue and projections are projections, right? You know, I saw some of your fuel projections and they're just kind of flatlined after a certain year for some reason. even though you can't project fuel prices because diesel $6 right now. So, uh it's kind of hard to to vote for a 10-year contract on without having solid data to say this is how much we save.

Do I'm just kind of just laying kind of the the foundation of how hard it is for us to make this decision because of the fact there is no savings data. They're just projections. >> Yeah, I can I can jump in there. Um I don't think we need Marina to come back up to the microphone now because I want to validate um it isn't uncommon practice for districts to say there's some things that they feel very comfortable having a public conversation about and less comfortable uh having a public conversation about.

Um so we'll honor um the the request from those districts. Marini can speak uh to her experiences at Santa Barbara Unified. Um she can't speak to the exact numbers, but she can speak to the effect of this. Um before I hand it over to her, the other thing just from a framing perspective, and again, whether um the board wants us to continue to to gather information and bring back, we're happy to do that because we know this is a paradigm shift.

One of those paradigm shifts, however, is you're very accustomed to us bringing things forward to you. Mostly on the ed services side of the house in terms of what our current practices, what a new model and what that savings looks like. This paradigm is different. This is not a we're bringing this to you because we um expect x savings only. It's that even if we break even and we don't save anything, there are things that are potentially um improved like in terms of vehicle safety, reliability, um time spent uh on the road versus time spent um in in circulation um because sometimes when you have parts of our fleet that are unavailable, that impacts our efficiency.

Uh so there are all kinds of other things. This is a a different paradigm. So if there are questions um in terms of like how does this help us improve our effectiveness and efficiency, know that um we can absolutely uh create um answers to those questions. In terms of looking at this just from a what do we save perspective, I'm not really sure and nor are we really trying to make that argument that if you do this, you should only do it because it saves $30,000 a year. um there would be some some other uh gains there.

Um >> I think >> the problem is that's what the presentation is. >> Yeah. >> Right. So if if if that's not what we're trying to accomplish, then I think we need a presentation on what we're trying to accomplish because with this presentation, it's almost like a like a time share presentation where it's all projected. If you do this in two years, you're going to save this. If you stay in a hotel for two years, you rather just buy this.

So that's the kind of presentation. But if we're saying that there's a value even spending them even a little more money, then that's the presentation we need to say, "Hey, listen. We might spend 15 to 20 more,000, but our drivers will be safe. Uh we're going to save on gas. We we do this for the environment because of emissions." If that's what we're trying to do, then I think that's what we be should be presented it.

But being presented this way based on projection on projection on projection that that's not going to sell me out for me. It's not going to sell me out. >> I we appreciate that because one of the things that we were trying to be responsive to was members uh questions from the board last time and that was one of the requests. So we wanted to to share that. We did skip over some of the data to talk about safety. We can go back to that.

But um Marina, I wanted you to just share and please don't feel compelled to share like data. If you can just share the experiences that you had in Santa Barbara that either agree with or disagree with what's shared here. >> I wanted to actually there's so many layers to to uh I want to address first uh thank you so much uh trustee Peterson for bringing up points about um clarifying why we are you know having enterprise to begin with.

Um I just wanted to clarify one point about uh not just source contracting but any kind of either piggyback or camass contracts. Um other people who are public entities have already bid on them. So it's like overall like an umbrella contract already exists. So when we get one company that doesn't mean it's just one company that means there were many many companies who were competing at the time. So we we are kind of um attaching ourselves to the existing contract there and I have done a lot of those in um in my career.

So long story short and that's just I hope that clarifies that a little bit where we are with the just you know working with this company to answer that question. Um I brought up some points about safety about modernization about upper operational efficiencies all of that is very very valid. my personal experience and that's not emotional that's actual experience in Santa Barbara Unified School District and I worked there for over three and a half years.

Um there was never an issue about a conversation about difficulty managing vehicles or difficulty servicing them or any difficulty replacing them. So it was all very kind of automated. We still had a uh person who was coordinating those services and doing very very small repairs. uh but there was enterprise was there and because they have that local presence and they have their contracts around Southern California and all California where you can take your vehicles for service and it's the party that services them uh that has already has contracts with enterprise so it was the ease of it right now when we're maintaining our vehicles and then we have a great mechanic as I mentioned last time we have to take it to the dealer we may not take it to the dealer or some other place It's basically a hodgepodge of, you know, u how you maintain your vehicle.

It's it could be a 5-year-old uh truck or it could be a 25 year old truck. You still have to take care of it and sometimes it costs a lot of money. So, there's that unpredictability of how much money you're spending on maintenance. Um the presentation here, I I totally understand everybody's point about projections. Those projections are made based on what the information we have right now. We don't know what the future will bring as far as either inflation or any kind of other market conditions or any kind of like what the price of the vehicles would be or what the price of fuel will be.

We don't know. Uh however, we do know if we are not taking this step now in two three years, it's going to be maybe a lot more expensive for us to take that step then. So that's just a very important part for facilities department to have the modernization program going. So the later we start with that program the more expensive it will become and that's a fact because everything is going up in price. So those projections are just an illustration.

You can look at them as a token. They're just a token of what could be right now if the you know if everything kind of stays the same. uh when we did construction projects in you know under bond program or any other program we always in the last few years since the covid ended we always built like 10 15% escalation cost there uh and plus the contingency that was always important to have there in order for us to have that cushion because that project could take two three years to build and two three years everything could change so we always had that cushion there so what what these numbers are they're not real numbers they're by they're are very good projections and very good predictions so they're quite scientific so Asan and I we have gone through them our um business department has gone through them we are comfortable that those numbers are good they don't mean that they're going to be exactly the same or they're going to save us money necessarily but they will modernize our fleet and they will make us safer and they will make us more efficient >> uh can you go back just one second to that other slide slide.

I just want to point out, can you go back to our fleet analysis? I want to be clear here. I don't think No, no. Right there. So, that last second to last column where it says fleet budget, I know enterprise is coming here and telling that okay, you might be saving um about $293,000 over the 10-year period. Um well, what I'm trying to illustrate to the board here is if you look at our that 542,000, that's if we didn't do anything.

That's really what we our average spend is. uh based on our actual cost that in the previous slide. And then if we switch over to this plan, year one uh you would be paying 515,000. Year two, look at those annual costs. That's what our new cost would be by switching over to this new model by replacing about 11 vehicles per year. Uh that's what our new cost would be. So from my lens, from a CBO lens, I don't necessarily think that that savings will truly be materialized based on what Marina says, inflation potentially.

I think I don't think this I don't see this as a cost saving. What I see this is as modernizing our fleet and getting reliable uh transportation for our maintenance department, safe, robust >> department. >> That goes back to what Calvin said. this is presented to us as a cost-saving measure and now we're changing the narrative to >> yeah exactly what you said is what I was feeling is it's not what I was feeling it's what I was seeing right and so I I think that if for me to approve it like this it wouldn't make sense to me but if we're saying what you're just saying right now if that's the presentation and then you point that out in the presentation then I think it might be easier to digest >> yeah that's good feedback for us I Quite honestly, the some of the savings come from here from that reduction of fuel savings.

But I mean, we don't know what's going to happen five, six years now for fuel costs, right? Most likely they're headed upwards. Will we have more fuel efficient vehicles? Yes. Um, but that's not to say that it's going to be guaranteed savings. So, that's a that's estimated savings on what Enterprise is projecting. But when I was looking at this from my analysis of working with our fiscal services department, Joey, essentially, we're like, this is not really going to save us money.

What it will accomplish for us is to get a brand new uh it'll give us a budget to work with every year that we'll be replacing and a replacement cycle for our our maintenance fleet. And then why can't we have a side by side of our own modernization that we do and we have been doing for decades versus what enterprise can do? >> Yeah, I actually was writing those notes because I figured I see where the conversation's going.

So I'm taking notes in terms of what it feels like the board will need and I have that down here about what what would that look like in the future. Also bringing some uh points that Marina talked about like the source wall process. I feel like we need some information on that. Like it's not just the one bid that it's >> Yeah, that that was helpful because that was first of all that was my first objection. Yeah. Was like well how come no one else is trying to but if we've already used the umbrella that's already been vetted for the companies and they've already bidded and then this is what you know enterprise came out from the bid process then that's a different presentation too.

But as it's presented today it's presented as a cost-saving model and I don't agree with the costsaving model. So, I don't know if you you definitely don't want my vote today. I don't know if you want to do a different presentation or something that brings up the points that you're actually trying to sell. >> Okay. So, I just want to say because this is our second read and I felt like the first time we went through this, I did get more of that feel about the better fuel economy.

And for me, one of the biggest factors is for our employees safety and there have been so many technological advances. I mean, I'm sure that that 1985 truck does not have, you know, advanced braking system and airbags. So, excuse me. So, I mean, for me, and I would love to see this come back again with um the data that the rest of the team feels that they need, but um for me, what I keep coming back to is the idea of making sure that we have um the safety advances that are going to keep our staff safe while they're out on the roads. >> So, that's a huge factor. >> I I agree like I 100% agree what you're saying.

I'm just evaluating on the presentation that I was presented. In the presentation that I was presented, this is not what's selling me to say yes. >> Yeah. A couple of things. First of all, what I think I hear you saying between the lines is we're never going to be able to replace our fleet at a reasonable cost unless we go to a model like this. And so what you could do in the way of an analysis that would would help us, I think, is you could take the the projected how many vehicles we're going to replace each year, put the actual cost to buy those new versus the the if you want to make it a an economic issue versus what the leasing cost is to replace those.

So I I think that's the issue is there there could be savings, but it's going to be from us owning versus us leasing. Yeah, absolutely. If there's any other feedback on this item, uh we would love hearing it now. So, if there's any any >> Yeah. Oh, little small costs like is there towing involved? Do we have to pay a towing cost? What is the insurance on it? What does the cost insurance have to be on a newer vehicle versus a vehicle that we own?

Is it going to be more for having a leased vehicle because we have to insure a different way than we can I don't know. Yeah. So that those those uh smaller peripheral costs are going to add up to you know general general uh fund expenditures. So I it would be helpful to get a a more detailed analysis on that as well and what do we need to do versus what enterprise can do for us and what do we need to do that they can't. >> Okay, >> does that make sense? >> Yeah, that makes sense. >> Yeah. >> Um we've vetted some of this.

Uh I could answer the insurance question. We've already vetted this with our risk manager and he checked with our JPA. This wouldn't necessarily increase cost because we already carrying the higher limits that a lease requires. A lease requires Yeah. The lease requires at least a 100,000 300,000 per occurrence. 100,000 per person, $300,000 per incident. And we already carry that and exceed that amount. >> Yeah. Okay. any other feedback that you can think of for now? >> Okay, we'll get started on that.

Okay. >> All right. Thank you. Sorry you had come out again come out a third time. So, I do apologize. Thank you for doing that. >> Thank you so much for having us. >> Thank you. >> Thank you so much. >> I'm sorry. I'm noticing our next two conference items um we have negotiations update and then school closures advisory. But I do see some families in the back. I'm assuming they're probably here in order to speak to school closures.

I'm seeing some nods. So, would it be possible for us to flip those two items in order for our families to be able to make their public comment? >> Absolutely. I don't I don't see a problem with that. And we do have public comment then. Yeah. After the presentation. Okay. So, we're going to go ahead and move. Thank you so much. Uh moving on to 16B1, which is the school closure advisory committee update. It's uh >> Miss Walwitz, is that you? >> No, it's me.

That's me. >> We're gonna We're just gonna punt real quickly. Um who has the who has the remote? >> Okay, son, if you can just go to I think it's the next slide. Slide two. Perfect. Right. So, um school closure committee is moving along. We met at our last meeting 9:17 2026. This was the second meeting for the committee to actually start um you know deliberating and making recommendations to the board. We had a huge turnout at our last uh meeting about you know community members showing up in support of their schools.

Um there we took a poll after that meeting. Um, and we have scheduled two additional dates, October 1st, 2026 and October 8th, 2026 for the committee to continue its work and to try to um come to some sort of conclusion and bring forth some recommendations so the board can consider. >> Okay. Thank you, Dr. MZA. In terms of the broader context, what we are um hoping to do with the committee chair is to set up a timeline where we are still on working off of the original timeline.

So if you take a look at this timeline um the rest of the agenda we're not going to or sorry the presentation we're not going through. It's just historical to show that we have met all of these dates. Um all of the dates uh we've been in compliance with what we had said we were going to do. The dates that Dr. Mira shared are intended so that way for the regular meeting on the 13th that that committee would be u positioned to prepare oh sorry would be positioned to share the recommendations of the report so that way we would still be on schedule there.

Um there had been with some of our bigger um district-wide issues like facilities, one of the things that the board has asked us to do to ensure that we take the the biggest um grouping of public because oftentimes at this stage of the game, you have other people that maybe haven't been paying as much attention and now they see this is the time to get involved. One of the things that Dr. may didn't talk about that we would like um some guidance from the board on is we would like to plan a town hall uh following the meeting on the 13th.

So we would have uh um a town hall scheduled at one of our large facilities on the 15th and then that would position uh the board to hear a conference item uh of the the committee on the 13th not expected to hear um any uh to take any particular action. We then working with the uh board president um could set the agenda on the 15th to have another conference item but then also potentially have an action item as a first read not expecting action and then that way following either special board meeting or the regular meeting in November that item comes back for um for action again as a second read and that way the committee the community would have had again our last meeting on uh last week the 1st, the 8th, the 13th, um the 15th, and then potentially uh the regular meeting and if not at least one other special board meeting in between there.

So that would be at a minimum four opportunities for community input, potentially five opportunities for community input and the board to be able to um feel comfortable stating that we had given as many opportunities and venues for the public to provide input um as possible. Uh so that's that's our that's our plan. Um, Marian, is there anything you wanted to add there? >> Just to note, we had about 450 to 500 people at our last school closures meeting, which is why we felt adding the town hall um, similar similarly to what we did for surplus properties would be very important.

Um, so we have currently I have on my calendar a hold for a special on um, the 20th of October. Are you envisioning using that for this? >> It could be. Yes. >> And these town halls would give the community an opportunity to come up do a public comment or submit um something they wanted to. >> Yes. So our plan is to have them do public comment just as we do in person. However, if they also wanted to submit submit comments and they just weren't comfortable going up in person, they could submit something online.

However, that would not be a part of the formal public comment. >> So we wouldn't read that necessarily. They just come to us >> because it could be >> sure >> hundreds. Um, so we wouldn't necessarily necessarily read those, but you all would be provided with those. Um, they just wouldn't be a part of the formal public comment. >> Understood. >> And that would be consistent with how we had taken comments during like our facilities conversations.

Um, I guess I have a couple of questions about the idea of the town hall format because I think part of the challenge of this is that if we wait until after um the after the board has had our first conversation about it, then um that might are we going to get kind of a a broad conversation with a community at a town hall or would it be better to do that first? >> I don't know if I have a a good answer to that, but I can just share our thinking.

Our thinking was that and we'll go back to the timeline. The TBD what you have on your screen was that that there would be an additional meeting. There's at there is at least the need for one meeting. we think too. And so on between those two meetings on the October 1st and 8th, that gives the committee the opportunity to uh finish their discussions on elementary, discuss for the first time middle school and high school potential recommendations for closure or ranking and for the ad hoc committee that is already working on the final report for the entire committee to be able to provide input to that final report and then that finishes by the ETH. in terms of the timeliness.

This is part of the reason about our bifurcated strategy. Um we would then need to uh post that agenda and one of the things that we wanted to share with you and then also with the community is we didn't we would want to give a little bit of extra time for that ad hoc committee to ensure that they had taken feedback from the entire community because as you remember a lot of people were involved and invested in this. So, we wouldn't expect them necessarily to be able to finish all of that on the ETH.

They would then have at least a day or two. Um, we could still be in compliance with the Brown Act by posting the agenda on a Saturday as opposed to a Friday as we typically do just to be able to give them that extra day. Um, that way when the agenda is posted, it has the um the full um uh committee recommendation. the board and the public then see all of that prior to the meeting, a regular meeting on the 13th. We our plan is and you know again work with the board president on this would be to have the committee present that report um um and its findings on the 13th for a conference item only.

Um so that way the board could ask questions, take community feedback. Um it wouldn't be expected for any action to be taken on that day. I I think some on something this big, you know, Erin on the side of getting more information because I think what we're seeing is we shared a lot of information and I think that it's kind of catching up where we thought was going to happen in the beginning with the information that we're sharing.

I think it's kind of happening now and more people are realizing the process. So I think we're delayed on that um the actions of the of the of the community. So for me, I'm not in a rush to close any schools. So having more information, having more dialogue so that the community feels that we took their opinions into account before we start making decisions, I I think is important. I think it is it has serve us better by taking our time and being methodical about it.

So I I agree with it. >> And um that's not the only community outreach we've been doing. And so how would what would you describe more of that? Right. Uh well, several members of of of this board have been with me presenting at community councils and other meetings, meeting with PTAs. Um so over the last year, we've been engaging the community at multiple levels. Um but I do want to go back to uh Trusty Peterson's comment.

Regardless of all the additional outreach that all of you have been doing in addition to what I've shared, one of the things that is very consistent is that whenever districts have these committees, really the community starts to get involved at the very end. And that is very consistent regardless of how much outreach has been done. And quite honestly from a from a time and emotional investment that's probably the best thing for the community to to be able to once they know the schools that are rising to the top they know that this is something that they need to be um expressing publicly.

It makes a lot of sense. Um so you know there have been some uh as we know there have been a handful to a dozen community members that have been involved from the very beginning. Uh but I don't want to say I don't want to what I don't want to do is to say anything disparaging against the people who've just come on board. This is the time to get involved. This is if they weren't paying attention now is the time to pay attention. >> And thinking ahead of of next year and the following year, is there like an optimal time that we need to start actually make a decision and go with it because I don't want to drag this out for the community. >> Yes.

Okay. Um thank you for asking that. So just to recap where we would have those two school closure advisory committee meetings on the 1st and the 8th then the that committee would finish their work. They would then come to present the findings to the board regular meeting on the 13th followed by a board town hall meeting on the 15th. Then we you the question asked earlier about would the 20th be a special board meeting potentially.

That's that's up to the board, but we are we are primed for that. Then we get into um whether the board takes action at the special board meeting, the regular board meeting in November. But in terms of what that means for staff, one of the things that we have shared with the community over the year of outreach, what we have shared with them is that from a staff perspective, in order to honor our current um school of choice window, which right now our school of choice window, unless it were amended, would open as it has over the last couple of years on November 19th because that is our information date night and then generally we have held that window open for a month.

So the natural close date to that would be December 18th uh which occurs right before uh winter break. And then uh staff has again depending upon if everything aligns with those timelines we then uh would if the board were to take action um as expected um anytime before December and especially you know by December by the beginning of December is really optimal. after that point. And this is why I don't want to project too far.

We would need to see how far off we are before we come forward with another recommendation about potentially amending the school choice window, either truncating it or extending it. uh and then bringing forward to the board what the implications of either of th those decisions might be because we at a minimum whether we truncate it, keep it the same or extend it either way we need to continue to communicate with the community so that way they're aware um because everybody is unsure.

Um many of you have been in meetings with me where the parent community is wondering we don't know what to do. um we don't know whether the school choice window is going to be the same. And the reason that we know we need to overcommunicate regardless of what decision um we do not want to put parents especially now in a position to have to maybe make a different decision about which district they are going to go in because they just don't know which schools uh whether there will be any schools closed, whether the same schools will be open or whether in the future a school might close.

The sooner we can communicate that, the better uh for the short-term and the long-term enrollment of the district. >> Um so I have a couple of questions about process. Um so the school closure committee is still working on their um you know on their their ranking. I haven't watched this last one yet. So disclosure um was there a sort of return to more of a databased discussion >> uh before I respond um there were critiques from the community um publicly that they felt that some and this is where I want to say there are four groups and so anybody who's been following the proceeding knows that um the facilitator broke the committee into four group groups groups and four table groups.

That critique was not equally spread across those four groups. Some of the community members felt because of the statements that they heard that they felt the decisions that were being made by a couple of the groups or a few of the groups were not as data driven as maybe some of the other recommendations from the other groups. I this is my perspective on that. Are there members who are less data driven than others? Absolutely. and the board when we originally picked um the representatives we you had full awareness of the fact that some people will come into this with different backgrounds they have different levels of expertise I don't think there was ever an expectation that everybody was going to approach the work the same way so I want to say that first um one of the other things that I think is important to note is that the community also did not have the benefit of hearing the exact conversations that were happening at the tables they did not have that benefit in the previous meeting, nor did they have that benefit in this meeting.

And so I also want to say on behalf of probably many of the school closure advisory committee meetings, even if there were more database decisions happening at the tables, what people responded to broadly were the things that were said um and could be heard audibly. And in that regard, there were some people who represented their conversations and that's could have sounded less databased. Um, so that's the best way to kind of answer your question. >> Can I just add to that?

But what we have done is all of the feedback on top of the questions and answer the question and answers we've been answering putting on the Q&A link, but on top of that, all of the comments that we've received from community members, we've compiled them all and shared that with the entire committee. So, the comments about, you know, not utilizing data, you putting emotion into this. Um, all of the data that we've received, all the comments that we received, we've sent it over to all of the each committee member so they have them and it's reflective of what um it's exactly what we've received.

So part of the reason I asked that question is um you know my understanding when we started this process was that the committee's um sort of charge was look at the data that is being presented ensure that the data is accurate that it accurately reflects realities at our within our sites and kind of within the community and then based on those based on those findings bring forward a ranking for consider consideration for the board.

I guess you know and I'm always very reluctant to be critical of volunteers because we're asking people to do something super hard, right? On the other hand, um I want to make sure that when that comes to us that we still have the ability to look at the data for ourselves and and sort of see where those things may align and where they don't align. 100% and uh again you've heard me say this in a variety of venues and we reinforce with this with the committee continually.

Um they are advisory in nature just as staff is advisory to them in nature. They bring forward the recommendations however they get there. Um whether there's a large consensus or small consensus that gets captured in the report and the board has the full authority and discretion to make additional recommendations not um take action or not. Um so yes that that's exactly what we expressed to them. >> Um okay and then having established that I guess my next question is um obviously the the committee has looked at a lot of data.

Um and it's all available on the website. Um I've looked at a lot of it. Um and I want to thank Vicki um for giving me this copy of all the printed uh versions of those things because I prefer paper. Um, I'm old that way and I have the reading glasses to prove it. But, um, is all of that information going to be given to the entire board and will they be able to have that with enough time? I mean, it's a couple hundred pages to be able to actually review it and then um, I've shared this with you.

There is data that in my opinion is missing from this that I would like to see when this ultimately comes back for a conversation. So, when would you want to know from us what additional data we want prior to that conversation? >> Okay, lots of questions there. Um, yes, the committee has had that information. Yes, the public has that availability to get that now. Uh, yes, uh Vicki has uh formatted that information. Amy is going to be uh giving you the option.

We just didn't want to print hundreds of papers unless you wanted it. Uh so Amy is going to be reaching out to you individually to see if you also want it printed. If you don't want it printed, it will be available in the same format grouped already and Vicki's done that. Uh in terms of the uh before I respond to the additional questions for us, the committee also had additional requests for data from us and so we worked with the city and the county to get that additional data and they the committee is and the public also has the access to those uh websites uh for the additional analysis.

So, in terms of the request for staff, you can start sharing tonight what those requests would look like at our one-on- ones or any other time about what that would look like so we can start that process immediately. >> Yeah. I don't know if we're going to go individually on what we want for, you know, for me if if everything is on a thumb drive that I can take and and and search through and then if I wanted something printed because sometimes when you print it and you look at something, it's just different than looking on a computer screen.

So for me that would be the thing is just I I I can take everything on a thumb drive and then if I wanted certain things printed I can just I can just request and print it. But I do want to see all the data because this is you know in my opinion one of the biggest decisions that the boards you have making the last what 2530 years. So more information is better. >> Yeah. And and and is that 150 pages? >> That's a lot or a considerable amount.

It looks like 100 looked like 200. And so that's going to take us some time. Yeah. And we we don't have enough. So I think the board initi uh the board's uh intention of the committee was to to be handsoff and to allow them to have the access to it without bias and but we also need to verify that and that's just a part of the our job, right? So um I agree with with Sabrina. We need to have that information. I don't mind having it digitally to save trees.

Um so one of the things that uh I wanted to see in just in looking at what was already shared with the um committee is it seems like some of the um the space conversations around the number of available rooms. So, if you look at the list of like how many students could be absorbed in individual sites, um those numbers aren't accurate because at sites you might have a wellness center or counseling office or you know a speech um or intervention room that's being utilized that previously had been a classroom and that would allow for absorbing additional students on a site.

So that was just one thing that as I went through there's a discrepancy between um what's on the list of how many students could be absorbed at an individual site and what at least just with the sites I know well what I know is available. So is there is there a plan to update that information? Um do you know specifically which criteria we're referring to? Because um we did utilize the classroom um classroom capacity report, classroom usage report.

Uh we worked with each of the principles to identify um and facilities department to identify okay is this an intervention room, is it a library? Okay, we're not going to count that as loadable, meaning loading it as potentially utilizing it if class if teachers or sorry if students come to that site. Uh we're not counting that as a classroom. So we made some accommodations for that and I we could kind of outline which classrooms site by sight were excluded um to for whatever specific use that they're currently using for um if they're going to continue with that.

Uh we left some room in there. So, we're not accounting for every single room to be utilized for students if a class if a campus is closed because they might be this the size of that room may not accommodate 24 students, right? It could be a smaller teaching room or um they're doing a special program there that they just can't relocate. Um so, those are some of the considerations that we took into place. >> Yeah. I mean, I'll just give you an easy example.

I've seen this at a couple of sites um recently, but the one I know the best obviously is Lincoln. So, we have when my kids were students there, we didn't have um a a room dedicated to a library. We didn't have a wellness space for a counselor that was like its own classroom. Um the intervention teacher had a space in the cafeteria, didn't have their own classroom. So that's three classrooms right there that were functioning 30kid classrooms that are now currently not being used as a classroom.

So if you look at what it shows as space available at that site that would allow for an additional hundred students, right, that are not that don't show on the list of capacity. And that's true. I mean I spoken to families at Will Rogers similar, right? Like you have the the counseling center which is a classroom but isn't being used as a at the library that is a classroom but isn't being used as a classroom. So, as we think about what um what it might look like to consolidate campuses, I think we need to have more accurate information.

Yes. Would losing a library be, you know, a programmatic loss? Yes. But that's a decision the board should make based on having accurate information. And I I'll just add that that comment am among others like the um the issue that has come up repeatedly is about boundaries. We have been clear with the the committee that that is a that is a board level decision. Whether a school maintains a library is also a policy level decision.

Um so yes and we staff we will be coming to the board with additional details that we know that are policy level decisions um that are outside of the purview of the committee. So that that is one of many examples. >> I think specifically libraries, we left. We said, "Okay, we're going to continue operating libraries because we have we had we don't have direction from the board that we're not going to keep libraries, >> right?" >> But I would also add, I mean, having been on my school site for nearly 30 years, rooms flex.

So sometimes when like for example we had a steam lab for years and we no longer have a steam lab because it is being used for something else. So that is being used more effectively um for our music program. So I mean as programs change then the use of classrooms change. So I think we just need to be mindful of that as well. >> And uh so I was going to say this is a board report but I went to did a site tour with all the middle schools.

Uh and one of the questions I asked was capacity and and I think there's a distinction between having capacity and building like how much how much would it cost to build a a single classroom for 30 students and understanding that as a board would be you know having a really in-depth facilities examination of our sites that maybe the the the committee says hey this is their top two. Maybe we'd have a detailed like how can one absorb the other if there how much would it cost to build capacity versus um having students in the current capacity, right?

And so um and I I feel like and I invite the board that that would be great to go actually see those sites and to visually see that like hey this is this is doable or not. >> Yeah, those are Yeah, thank you for the feedback and I'll just add a little bit of context on our walkthroughs. One of the conversations that came up was uh as you know we have some sites that have already dedicated places for portables but they just don't have a portable versus other sites don't and those are two different costs.

Um also outside of the purview of the committee because that is an expenditure issue and that's where the board in order to make a determination about could a site have capacity that's how we're approaching the work with the committee. If we we are we are saying yes we could but in terms of operationalizing it that's for the board to decide and if like yes it could and it the the can it just could happen with you know $800,000 of additional investment is that something that the board is willing to do.

So that was the the broader context of that conversation. >> But no, but I I it's we're getting to that point where that is and since we're the board is talking about there >> there are differentiations between the conversations that come to you versus the conversations that happen in the committee. This is one of them. So, um, an additional piece of information that I think would be very helpful is, um, we have portables on many of our elementary and middle school, well, and high school campuses that are end of at the end of their life or well past what would be considered their usable life.

Um, those are being included as part of the capacity of a site when really it's questionable whether they should be considered as usable. So it would be helpful to understand again have having that information clearly delineated. Additionally understanding if we have portables that could that are not so old that they couldn't be moved and could be relocated what where are those available and where could they be moved if we needed them.

Right? So I just think that kind of information um it's not currently in the materials that have been provided and it's helpful. So, for portables, we've been looking at unless they've been condemned, if they're condemned, we excluded them. But outside of outside of that, >> hey, thank you for that. I appreciate that safety note. >> Outside of that, um, you know, some of these, we do have the ages of all of the portables and um, there would be some like we didn't want to make the determination that the board's going to say don't rehab the portables, right?

Because I mean, rehabbing a portable could range from 100,000 to like $400,000. So, we left those in with the caveat that look, we're going to need to put some money in to repair these portables. >> Does that >> Yeah. >> Does that trigger a DSA evaluation? Any of those kind of things? >> Sometimes, but rarely. >> Yeah. >> Again, I think it just um you know, I mean, well, you already know this about me. I'm gonna ask a lot of questions in this process and um if we can have that information in advance to be able to know where we have facilities that you know are mobileish, right, and could be could be moved are of a time frame that actually they're still not only viable from on paper, but actually are places we would want to put kids in, right?

Um I think having that kind of information as we go through is really helpful because it's all part of the the bigger picture, right? And so I feel like um one of the disadvantages with the committee is that although they're spending a ton of time like you know many of them don't know our campuses very well and so the limitations of not actually being able to put um you know what on paper looks like it's got this many classrooms actually has a very different number of classrooms based on how you categorize those things.

So you know we're going to want to have that information and have it in advance. >> Yeah. And that just makes me think also of the unique features of some of our sites that might not have been thoroughly represented in the data. So, um I know specifically we've heard a lot from um regarding the habitat um and the amount of money and um hours and things that have gone into it. So I think you know I know all of our campuses have their own flavor and their own specialty and literally this is like every single one of our campuses is special for its own reasons.

Um but I think also having that available so that um that could be considered is going to be important as well and um to President Forth's um recommendation of touring some of the campuses as well. I think that's going to be important. Thank you. I wrote that down. And uh just for the community's benefit, many of the initial conversations related to like specialtities or or unique attributes that was part of the like the some of the early literature, but then the subsequent literature is reflective of the discussion that yes, are there some unique elements to some sites?

Yes. But for the committee, should that stop them from making a recommendation? We didn't want that to be the determining factor because ultimately that is a board policy. Um that's or sorry a board decision. Um because we took that lens of yes it could. Could could a special program move? Yes, it could. Are there things that have to be considered? Yes. But it could move and so we want them to do their work based on yes it could and go from there. similar to the discussion the criteria of alternate alternative uses.

Um kind of left all of that blank because that's yeah >> the board's discretion. >> Um one last area of clarification. Um so on the the the cost per student um uh classification um that just seemed really odd to me. um the example of like Poinsedia had a really high per student um cost, but you know, we know that they have a significant autism program which has with it a huge number of supports that if those students were moved to another site, those costs go with those students, right?

So, I feel like sometimes that kind of information without more explanation is very confusing to people. Like I mean I I don't think it's confusing to the board, but the average person looks at it and says, "Well, yeah, look at how expensive that school is. You should obviously close that one, right?" And then and then they don't understand that like, well, if you move a bunch of kids that have uh a special need to another site, all those services go with them.

And so now you're just increasing a cost someplace else potentially, right? So, I think if we can um again have a little bit more information with more of that narrative, I think it's really helpful to people. >> Thank you. >> And then I I think just also reinforcing to the community that the recommendations I know we've said this a million times, but the recommendations are advisory and do not have fear like your board is here to do the hard work as well. we're not solely making decisions and rubber stamping what the advisory committee um is making for their recommendations.

So, >> we do have some public comment and I think we should get to that because we have a break coming up as well. >> Good evening everyone. You will have three minutes to speak this evening. I will give you a 30- secondond warning and the timer will indicate when time is up. Before we begin, we would like to remind everyone that the governing board recognizes the impact that civility has in the effective operation of the district, including its role in creating a safe and positive school climate and and enabling a focus on student well-being, learning, and achievement.

The board believes that everyone should be treated with dignity and respect in their interactions within the school community. The board does understand that the first amendment provides strong protection for speech. However, the board expects that all speech, expression, and action will follow the norms of civil behavior in district meetings. Please remember that we do have students that attend and watch our meetings, so please keep language as respectful as possible.

The board is listening to your public comment this evening. However, they are unable to respond based on Brown Act rules. Please also note that the podium, the microphone at the podium um has been calibrated. Feel free just to talk right on into it. I'm going to call three names at a time. So, first up is Carrie Nesbbit, followed by Amanda Carlson, followed by Rose Elfman. Go ahead. >> Okay, I started late at the last meeting, so I'm paying attention now.

Hi, my name is Carrie Nesbbit. I am a parent of two students at Will Rogers Elementary, a kindergarten student as well as a third grade student. My third grader has been at Will Rogers since kindergarten and he started at the TK program at Lemong Grove because when we when we were ready to go to TK, Will Rogers didn't have that program. My daughter has the benefit now of if she completes her program at Will Ro at Will Rogers, she will have the five first she'll have seven years of dual immersion um classroom teaching, which is something that we're invested in as a family.

Um, so I'm here today to talk about Will Rogers. Will Rogers from the criteria that we've been given that um, a committee that we've started at Will Rogers that we call the Will Rogers Community Advocacy Committee because we're so jealous of all of your acronyms, so we had to have our own. Um we are made up of about 70 parents from Will Rogers that have that we have everything from law degrees, PhDs, social work degrees, um people who are used to doing data analysis and we've separated ourselves into different committees to do what we had hoped that the SEAC would do which is do your best to pour through the data, do your best to to stay factual and also you know per democracy fact check everything.

We have not been satisfied on a professional level that that's been done. We, as Sabrina brought up, as Miss Miss board member Rodriguez brought up, a lot of us are AYSO coaches. None of us are here to critique volunteers. However, you know, not knowing what offsides is is a lot different at a tenu game than closing a school. And it has felt that there has been this don't blame us, we're doing our best. But I I appreciate that the board members today, board member Peterson, you know, board member Foresight, board member Rodriguez, board member Frederick's, that you're telling us that this does matter to you and that you are going to fact check the data because per our committee and per our own backgrounds, we do think that there's been some serious issues in the data.

The one that I want to speak to directly today is um the measurement of uh test scores. And I can see I'm very I have 45 seconds. is that per the board's own policies, you're not supposed to measure um elementary school test scores for a two TWWI program and compare those to nonTWI. It's not the projected um arc of TWWI. And you see, I know we were talking this evening about, you know, AP test scores. That's how we know that Will Rogers is working because of the AP test scores, high school test passing scores that are coming out of Anacappa.

So we we just ask you to please please please please take this decision seriously and know that we are absolutely dedicated to our community. Thank you. Up next, Amanda Carlson followed by Rose Elfman followed by Craig Raling. >> Hi, good evening board. Thank you for having me today. My name is Amanda Carlson and I'm also a Will Rogers parent. I have three students at Will Rogers in second, third, and fifth grade. I drive from Santa Paula every day twice a day to take the kids to school, pick them up.

Um, we also participate in LPCC after school. Um, Carrie brought up factchecking, so I'll fact check my partner. We actually have 160 uh members that are part of the Will Rogers Community Advocacy Committee, um, which we're really proud of. Um, and like Carrie mentioned, I too am also an ASO coach, so I can appreciate the volunteerism of, uh, the committee that was formed for the advisory. Um, after attending Thursday's school closure