the staff meeting at 6.04. And welcome, everyone, thanks for coming out on this rainy evening. And just so we have a sense in terms of names, could we all identify ourselves starting with John Julio in the back of the room? John? Didn't you say my name?  Erskine Stanley, parent? Joy Bronson, for our educator. Liz Hillfoyle, parent. Welcome. We still have one at the back. Oh, okay. Thank you, ma'am. So, first up, we have any agenda revisions? Is there any proposal to move items on the agenda so that we can, if folks don't want to stay for the entire meeting, we can just address certain things from the first place. Playground? Okay. Any others that we can possibly move? Does anybody have an objection to moving the playground to the forefront in terms of discussion I have? I can't make that up. So, all of those. So, a proposal we move 3.3 to 3.1, put 3.3 up, and 3.5 up as well. Any objections? No. Any public comments or correspondence? No, no. Well, since she's dealing with topics, I was going to propose that we address the sections of the letter that address the topics. And we can add the letter as a whole into the record. Chip Hadlin also dropped a letter, maybe 2.3 off, because he thought this was the last run of the board meeting, which they actually, I don't know if it will be. Well, it's not the last meeting, but maybe the last meeting in the building. Maybe in the building, but it's not the last meeting. Maybe not. But he dropped off the letter that I'm reading into the record. I can read it now if folks would like. So, it's to the run of the school board, over the years working run of the school has been a privilege and challenge that demanded true personal and professional growth. A key contributor to both of these kinds of growth has been the working relationships with the run of the school board. That organization, like the staff, like the students and their families has not been a static body in the visuals of coming down, but as an institution, the board has come to have a unique character that only might be possible with a school like from the community like Middlesex. Even though I am not a Middlesex resident, and even though there has been times of great turmoil in the life of the school and the town, I do not regret in the least having the opportunity to participate in the collective enterprise. But I am profoundly moved by the impact of the changes in governance that are now being enacted because they mean that this continually evolving body that has been so integral to the lives of everyone connected to the school will no longer exist as a self-sufficient organ of the school community. To me, there is a gravity to this change that deserves earnest reflection looking both forward and back in time. I can't be president tonight's meeting, but I did want to let folks know that quite apart from the business you will be conducting, the only school board as a collaborative body will be in my thoughts. So I'm Chip Heller. So I'm going to make this be part of the record. Any other comments in cross-finance? And Chip makes a good point that we are potentially coming to an end of an era in regard to local school board, local school boards in the Washington Central Supervisory Union. As of July 1st, unless something happens, this board will be dissolved by law. Actually December 31st. We will still be in existence for auditing purposes. But in terms of a decision-making body, there will no longer be a viable organization, which has sadness about it. So we should talk later about celebrating that later in the month as we are closer to the 30th of June. So is there a motion for the consent agenda to approve the minutes of May 6th, 2019, May 24th, 2019, and May 29th, 2019, meetings? So moved. Is there a second? Any comments on the May 6th, 2019 minutes? Any comment on the May 24th, 2019 minutes? Any comment on the May 29th, 2019 minutes? I'm all for improving the minutes. Say aye. Aye. No votes? Okay. That's it. Thank you. So we will take up the playground. Renovations first. And it's going to be that we do not have much. No, because I need a direction from the board. I can't go to work with John without knowing where you want to go as a board. I need the board to make a decision on what type of renovations as we outlined in the last meeting. Okay, so the choices that we have is either to develop a new preschool playground off the back of the school, off the back of the school, or do a renovation of the main playground. Yep. You need a ramp up to that playground. You need it now for ADA purposes. Okay, we need the rent regardless. Yeah, we do. And my recommendation last time, although it was more money, but it was, I think, better money in the long run is to build a ramp off the playground up there. That's ADA accessible. Okay. And we went up and did a safe view. Do we have any firmware numbers on what we... I can't... I need a decision by the board. Chris, I don't have any firmware numbers. I need a decision by the board before we go and get better numbers and start contracting with people to do that design. We had a meeting that we talked about this, that we were going to allow John to come back with some viable options. That's what I am. I thought you could do something and then just give us some... I know we got some rough estimates that 100,000 dollars. And most we start sign a contract with him as an architect to start doing design. And I wasn't comfortable with that to you as a board, say what are the parameters that we're calling. Because there was also talk of moving the entire playground. Or doing it in a different way. I think we were looking for, at least from my perspective, we were looking for guidance on what the different options were with the costs might be for relocating it versus... As I said, he won't give us... His liability insurance will not allow him to design playgrounds. He doesn't do that. He doesn't sign a ramp. And the ramp is... He said that he was comfortable doing without doing the contract with the numbers I gave him last time. I think 30,000 or 40,000 dollars probably would be a ramp up there. I think to be direct, I thought that our question was should the playground be in what we would call the wet field? Should we move the playground to the wet field? Or build a playground with the question being is it actually more accessible because there's less of a ramp to be in access to the wet field than to build a much longer ramp to access where the current playground was? That's sort of where I thought... There was a third option of which I thought that we were not as interested in which was having just a pre-paid playground off of the 3rd and 4th grade concerts. That's what I thought. That's what I thought we were discussing was. Yeah. I had asked to maybe get... I had asked if we had someone to come in to us what we were just talking about, assess kind of the difference between an accessible and an inclusive playground, just looking at the minutes but maybe John coming in to help us like Brian said kind of establish where the best place we need to start to have a more firm conversation. So when I think about this I guess the sum total is we are obligated to be ADA compliant and I see no situation where we are not going to in some way want to take advantage of the space that we have on that hill. So I don't really see any way that we get around building ramps. So let's say that we move the playground. Well, that space is going to be appropriated for something else and then it wouldn't be ADA compliant in that regard. You can't have a soccer game there if everybody can't get to the soccer game or whatever. So I see no way around that ramp. So I guess from my perspective the simplest and most straightforward thing to do is to get a ramp to that area now just bear the cost of it and be done with it and I would need a paper keeping the playgrounds where they are because I like that it's a little secluded behind the school and it feels a little somehow more protective. But I guess that's the first part of it. Do we want a ramp or do we not want a ramp? And to me I feel like we should just get it done with. And you mentioned the lift too looking into the but I guess we can't really look into any of the like how let me rephrase instead of ramp create access to that playground I agree. And yes and I don't think we can really evaluate what's the best kind of ramp, what's the best kind of lift, what's the best kind of whatever until we've decided to at least that's my understanding of what Bill's saying. Yeah, I'm trying. I need to know where you're where you're going. Architects like to have, you know, they like to have a contract before they start working it on. Alright. And to be clear John has already you know met with our special ed director, our pre-K teacher, myself and our custodial staff to do a preliminary scan of the available spaces and it's really up to you what he was not going to weigh in really on which one was best. And was it three different spaces the ones that we toured which was out the back and then some bigger field and then up top where the ground is now? Right. I mean each area has issues you know I mean just keeping it plowed and shoveled and all that with that long span is a challenge and in addition you know us paving at the back you know we met with you know someone that does that type of work and he said you know he wouldn't guarantee it more than a year so you know the paving because of the heavy equipment that goes over it back where we get deliveries, we get fueled service, we get island from the town all down that service road and in the back for a turnaround. So I feel like we have scanned we just need a decision. So if the back field soccer area and not recreation but back to the wet field I guess I'm not the little soccer field as well. If that was ever to be used for activities that would have to be ramp access as well. I mean yes because I think I think I haven't surveyed it so I do not know the elevation gain from the back door or from this door to that place to that place. That's why we need to engineer an architect because it's a 1 in 12 slope as I said that you have to have to be accessible with brakes every 30 feet for 5 foot of level. And the surface material is what we have been checking into. Because right now it's pretty rough. Can we go with something like a stay mat versus an asphalt but either way to ensure the asphalt stays for longer it gets into heavier costs because of the drainage. We all live Vermont we all know what Frost does around here. Those are the things and that's why we need I can't give you anything more than the back of the envelope costs we need the design that's to be done that we need to sign a contract with an architect to do that. The architect being black over design. That's who I would suggest but didn't you just say that they don't specialize in playgrounds? They would do the playground piece. We'd have to go specifically to a playground company like Amy did with the company that's put in the playground last year. You have to go straight to playground companies to do playground design. They would design the ramp. They would design the playground. No but Black River. Black River design would do the ramp and any site work has to be done around. Okay so is the ramp would be phase one? Access would be phase one right? So the way that I see it we have to decide whether or not we want to consider alternate locations or whether or not we want to keep it there and we have limited information so we don't have dollar amounts and costs. Do we feel like we can what do you think Ryan? I'd like to know what I'd like to have some guidance from the experts on what's going to make the most sense for accessibility for kids and you know if so I feel a little uncomfortable being put in the position of making the recommendation when I don't really feel like I have I'm not asking you to make a recommendation I'm asking you to commit to a location. But that is probably the recommendation. There's only one location that it can be unless you can move the playground and everything out and not do it in phases because you know kids grow up and the playground already has an accessibility issue so I think at the very least we have to make that unless we can move the playground and that just doesn't look like that's a feasible option. I asked John about a lift potential and as I recall Deanna you were there I don't think that knew of one. No yeah he didn't seem to have that knowledge for that. But Ryan I think we're on the same page thinking like we are still wondering which is the right site in terms of like what is because when I think about it it's a it's more long term problem in terms of like there is more to go up to the upper access but there's a lot of larger maintenance costs and the question of what is the time frame of actually accessing that playground and how much does that cut into. Yeah I think that's one way Deanna the other way is that you don't have ADA accessing now to your playground and so not all individuals can use that. But if we moved the entire playground to where it's lower and you have a shorter ramp then the whole playground is also accessible and the ramp is less which means it takes children less time to get to the playground and then the long term maintenance of plowing the ramp is lower cost because you don't have such a long number of yards that you're plowing. So are you thinking that we would then give up use of that space that space would become non accessible to anybody? I don't have a plan for that place but it could, I mean if you moved the whole playground down that seems like it is an option and I think what Brian was wondering is a recommendation from somebody who has had some insight to say yeah that's a better long term vision or no the better plan is to just build the long ramp I think we want some input on that right? Because we have even the ramp switch back versus that's where you're going to need to design the estimate of we can estimate about the cost between $30,000 and $40,000 you're not if that's where you're going to if that's where you want to go and then you want to say well what does the design look as a switch back as a straight you can work with an architect to get a couple different versions of the design it's like when you did the building project here you started talking about what were before you even got into the building project then you signed a contract we have two different architecture firms but they then get some concepts of what you want for a design and make some decisions on that but you were already in the place of saying we know we're going to go and we're willing to put money down for an architect to do a conceptual design and a whole building renovation architects are willing to take more lead not knowing because they know there's a bond boat coming this isn't a bond boat type of piece this is work within a capital fund so when they see a project that's a multi-million dollar project they're willing to be a little bit more upfront with their services because they see they're going to get they're going to get 10% of the project cost so that 10% is not not going to cover the design for $4,000 on a $40,000 ramp is not going to cover it so would John be able to provide guidance on what the best location would be or is that the playground designed folks that would be able to provide that even though I know he doesn't design playgrounds but in terms of I'm sure he knows information about accessibility would he be able to provide that insight in terms of best location for a playground even though he's not designing it so I don't know how to answer that Chris because I haven't asked him that question I'm here thinking I don't understand why we aren't through the board doesn't feel comfortable making a decision that's why I'm perceiving where you are right now and I don't understand that because it's not I'm not saying that in a I'm just trying to say I'm being really transparent with you if you want to put the playground down here you're going to have to in less than two years because you don't have accessibility at the top so either you're moving the structures that are up there down don't we have to recreate a playground anyone's you've got some pieces that we think you should upgrade right now you don't have accessibility and at best for the pieces that you have there you have a couple pieces that need some probably renovation to make it more ADA accessible they are very old pieces so I frankly think and Amy's been lobbying you hard to think about hey let's get some more appropriate play pieces that's anywhere that you're at the place is where do you want your playground to be an overall playground in case this right and that becomes the cost question as to whether it is better to have it the entire playground is not going to be off the back of the building I suspect it has to either be in the small soccer field or where it is now and right and you're going to have to you're probably going to incur I mean you're going to have to move structures that are up there most likely they're in concrete somewhere in the base so you've got to then move those down and reset them in new concrete you know you're going to do that or you're probably in the end probably going to have the same cost either way because you've got to move everything that's up there down and then reset it plus the drainage instead of just replenishing the mulch or whatever the ground cover is you're going to have to think about that but in terms of a student access and I think Kate made the point of saying depending upon where the access points are the student could be going up all the way to the playground get there just in time to turn around again and come back because recess is over and so you know that sounds like that's the upper playground versus the small soccer so I mean that's a factor I don't think we've really explored much so my question about John is if we said go and contract with him for a grant design but is he able to say based on his experience in designing schools and I'm assuming he knows about ADA access so whether or not which would be the more accessible of the two locations that we I think we're really dealing with which is small soccer field or whether the playground is now because I mean I'd be glad to hear from others saying that you think we could be off the back end I don't know if we can be off the back end for the entire playground is that a feasible design to be off the back end I don't think we have the land for it okay so it's really the small soccer field or where we are now in terms of a playground so would John be able to you know if we said hire him would he be able to get some guidance or vote on the 17th as to which location it should be I don't know the answers I'm not trying to stall I just don't know the answer to that it sounds though that there's some recommendation towards going with what we have now and just building a ramp that's my recommendation is that because you think because of the cost you think it's going to be I think you're going to I think you're going to have a hard time providing accessibility to everything they can have here and I find it hard to believe that even if you move that playground down that that upper area wouldn't be used that's not providing accessibility to all of us I mean never really would have to as Alison mentioned at some point maybe we would have to make it accessible I don't disagree with that person I have one suggestion about people that might be able to assist in deciding where I know the pre-k licensing the state licensing may be able to give a little not probably as well as John from Black River but may be able to give some kind of input on what might be a better spot for pre-k children of all needs and then also there's something that John suggested when we were surveying that we did put the playground in the small soccer field an access ramp to get to the larger playground could go up that little hill by the four square area which would save you know from looping through all the first trees so he said if we had access from the back door to the small soccer field for the pre-k playground and just continue the ramp all the way up it would be a smaller slope as well I just wanted to note that as well I'm wondering if though that would be a more expensive option because we need to address the drainage in the soccer field plus the ramp up can I read Kelly's because we forgot to read hers can I read Kelly's statement John's can that sound complete ma'am it was number 200 that was your special director playground accessibility I'm happy to see this as an action agenda for this evening I urge you to take action to move this work forward so that all children in middle sex community may access the playground as you are aware the conversation about the need to create accessibility to playground has been going on for months now with no action taken every day that passes delays this opportunity for all children in middle sex community to have equal access and learning opportunities I feel the need is within my role to advocate for this work to begin as soon as possible I advocated for this during the April board meeting and I continue to urge you to move this project forward projects of this nature take significant amount of time and planning the pre-k playground has been out of compliance for many years and it's time that's upgraded and accessible for all children and I would just say I don't think that any I think that I could probably assume that everyone on the board believes that we want access and we want an accessible playground and we want an appropriate pre-k playground I believe that fully I think what what I'm hearing is we want the design for access and having a solid design and a well considered application of a ramp that's going to work well is that's the hold up it has nothing to do with our level of good intentions so if we is at the boards and that's that's first I've interpreted that way so I thank you for saying that Katie that we would not want to have access Chris I'm sorry but I have not heard that directly said before I haven't said you haven't inferred it I'm saying I haven't directly heard that before I have a couple questions the first one is when we were looking at the pre-k playground it became known that we couldn't really fence the entire pre-k area without making the entire pre-k area ADA compliant and accessible the footing changes to the footing we can be grass so we were talking about fencing in a smaller area what dimensions are required for the actual school and if we fence the entire area there would we then have put mats down or footing change the footing for the entire area do you see do you understand my question so I was surprised when I was up there last night I was I guess we were talking to Kelly maybe and we were talking about the pre-k playground and I tried to ask as many ways as I could to make sure I got it right but my understanding was is that we actually had to either reduce the size of the fencing or we needed to make the footing accessible for the entire area so we couldn't just like make the footing and the area accessible like I think it was 18 by 18 75 square feet for a child so we couldn't you know let's say that we needed 100 square foot area because it's easy we couldn't just make 100 square feet accessible and have the rest still fenced we would have to make the entire thing accessible or limit the entire kindergarten to the 100 square foot area so I believe that that is correct it's not 100 square foot area I'm saying to make it easy and then the second question is is how much space do we need we're just saying footing do you mean matting I think like yeah some type of matting on the mat so that's what you mean by footing yes sorry no no no no and then how much space do we require to have for the other playground so would we be needing to make that other playground smaller as well like is it so is the area such that it actually would all fit down here do you see what I'm getting at am I making any sense the size guidance Deanna correct me if I'm wrong is tied to our pre-k licensure I think she's asking about the big kid playground there's no licensure that's where the limitation is coming from right yes sorry if I swear to the child like our playground is huge let me set a little context here the agency of human services regulations for pre-k are much much more stringent than anything around the agency of education so we're in the world of agency of human services regulations right now and a government pre-k is equally as the agency of education and Deanna does as well and so do I because you guys live in this world is that it makes it really hard for when we come to regulation issues do you have access to the playground as a whole beyond pre-k is there a requirement that there be madding I don't know the answers to that Chris do you agree with that I don't think there is but I just we've had other students who've had accessibility issues and would be fine on grass we have different requirements for AHA so Bill before I hear just say I think you're going to have a hard time getting accessibility to everything and my first reaction on hearing that was just that that's kind of orthogonal as to whether it's the right thing to do and what we're talking about now even as you mentioned how hard it is satisfying these requirements and going future what those might be it seems to me that's why now we need a comprehensive plan rather than this incrementalism that just says well we're going to take care of the pre-k here again two years ago we're going to be facing a new problem about having that we address David that's why I'm saying my recommendation of going for ramp all the way up is taking you for the long term where we were to bring a pre-k down and not able to move the playground from the top down there are different ways of achieving that there are different designs but I need to know where we're heading for because we're going to have to engage money with lack of a design I would guess that there isn't the space in the small soccer field I mean moms you probably know as well as anybody for both playgrounds right we have to clear more space and I just want to surface like who's to say we're not going to have grades kindergarten through sixth grade student that needs accessibility moving the summer like it can happen which I think was a big part of our conversation in the last meeting was making sure we do this the right way and not the fast way so I understand we're up against compliance that we need to get done but as a board we all feel like we had asked for more input on guidance of the space because none of us were comfortable with any of the discussion we had or at least I wasn't comfortable with the discussion that we had at the last meeting I feel like we're just moving too fast contrary to what Kelly feels like I mean I wish this conversation happened a long time ago and maybe it did and I wasn't here on the board but these are big decisions not to be taken lightly because you're going to want a playground that is inclusive and accessible for years to come to any type of person and I'm worried we're under I'm not concerned about the money I'm worried we're underfunding something that's probably much more money as I said last time if you were going to do a whole playground in the ramp you were up around $90,000 and I have looked this up a lot and I've seen much higher than that to be inclusive so that's the conversation I feel what we need to have is how what does this look like and how inclusive do we want to be I get that we're up against a time right now but this does not feel like we've been dragging our feet at all I think we've been asking really good questions and I don't feel like we've gotten great answers So how much money would you commit to finding better expertise and who would you like us to use Does Block River charge by the hour? How much do they do? How much do they charge now? It's $130 And the time given estimate and how long do we take to No, I didn't even ask them for that So if we committed $5,000 to design purposes only that would be about 30 hours I feel like you wouldn't need anywhere nearly that long So here's the thing because we talked about Joranny Juicius up there he's going to have to bring in civil engineer consultants Perkett? Not Perkett, it's how to drain it and where does the drainage go You're going to get into watershed issues Up on the top? No, you want the little soccer field You're going to get into all that either place because you're going to get into drainage Remember we just said that frost is going to be I think 5 is going to be low You might be thinking about 10 If you want design and options Okay So if So if we committed $10,000 to black river design I think we'd be asking for analysis of what would cost to build the ranch and also what would cost That's a more broad based analysis of where the place at should be If you're talking about the little soccer field This is the drainage that we'd have to address the small soccer field Okay We'll get you The ice skating rink Or the ice skating rink Potential Can we I think Ursula had it Okay Ursula So I'm hearing the board say that they want more information on the little soccer field or building a ramp to where the playground is now and they feel they can't make a decision on the location without more information and you're telling them they can't have more detailed information about contracting and engineering That's what we're just talking about right now So they would have to be willing to spend more to get to design They would have to look at alternatives for the little soccer field and alternatives for your larger field So you're looking at two places so you pay more for design as long as we're not taking action here Yeah I'm not This the conversation has been helpful I feel like I've gotten a little bit more information the last 10 minutes than we had before in terms of what just makes more sense feasibility and time limits because I think we do also have to be cognizant of what it's going to take to ensure that we do have accessibility for the next school year for the building and the playground both We should incorporate that into one I think because the building can be done now Right, the building we can get some of the building pieces done this summer but as I told you last meeting they're not big things to add more accessibility to this building I think we also need to look at what's going to cause us to resurface this area too That's not accessible That does not meet the definition of accessibility out there anymore because of what the process is doing As I told you last time the definition now under the code is any variation over a quarter inch I mean my concern was not wanting to overlook an alternate option that might be the non-obvious option but perhaps would have been better but we ignored it and assumed the playground is here so that's where we're building the ramp If people's thoughts are shifting then I'm open to that having heard more of this I just felt like we have to consider these options so that we don't have this paradigm that this is the only place the playground should be I don't know I guess I've heard from a parent side of things and from what I've heard from teachers open space for children to play so I guess when I hear this talk about the lower playground and I don't know what our numbers as a school look like but whether it's worth considering expanding the playground space or making that lower area more available to kids whether that drainage is worth it and I'm not out at recess so I don't have those answers of what it feels like but I guess if that space is usable on both sides I don't know I just make sense as many times as I've tried to walk to that upper playground myself like I can't even walk up and down that ramp in flip-flops barely so it's interesting to consider how that is going to be accessible for somebody even as a ramp and I see what's going to take a lot of reworking but I could see your concerns over how long it'll work Just to point out the clarification the ramp that's up there right now does not need ADA at all for slope it needs to run much longer but that is I don't know I haven't surveyed it so I don't want to guess a rate of climb on that but it's much much steeper than any ADA accessible ramp It's clear why it's not working Do we want to talk about setting a direction where people still not I am open to us engaging with Black River Design to estimate out the ramp up there and all the accessible access points to the building as well I guess I continue to feel like I really have a hard time seeing how we are going to completely get rid of that area up there I don't see it happening realistically and if I don't think that we're going to decide that it is a no go zone and the school is never going to use it I don't see that happening if that's not happening we have to have a ramp there even if we decided to make the playground different at some other point which I don't disagree I think you're totally right there could be another solution that we just have to think outside the box instead of being fixated nonetheless we still need a ramp up to that area the only thing is to get the ramp to the area we have and then if we want to make traditional playground renovations at some other time I suppose we could talk about it but I feel like I just don't see any other I don't see another option I guess I feel like that's the most practical and efficient thing to do So as part of our commitment of money to Black River we can ask them to look at that and come back and say give us some insight and that is the most logical place to have the playground and if it is then give us the idea of the ramp there but have that as part of the overall picture because I think if John is experiencing this having him look at the entire complex is probably a better way to and just get information from him on that along with the ramp you know the idea because any time we're going to expand access to space we have to expand access to it we have to expand total access every time we expand use of the space we have to expand the access to go to it I think you make a valid point and do the ramp now but I wouldn't want to say if we decide to expand the playground I feel like we need to look at it as a when we decide because there is still that concern about the timing to get up there in years to come so I don't want I just I don't want the ramp up there to say we'll do it and then it's done because that's not inclusive and I agree with you and I take your point the pre-K playground I don't I'm actually not in favor at all of putting in a bunch of expensive pre-K pre-K equipment and I think that we could talk about doing a much more creative playground that maybe involves lots of wood that can easily be moved but we could then get accessibility we could have a playground now we could have a ramp that we need no matter what and then it gives us time if we want to have engineers come in but I mean we have a kid coming into school that's not going to be able to get up to the playground so I feel like if we make that playground workable now in a way that gets us access to that area and isn't too expensive I just don't see how we can go wrong we could start now and actually maybe have a hope of getting it done but I don't think we're going to have to understand it's going to be hard to find a contract I'm not going to say we can do you have a sense in terms of what engineers cost because I'm trying to say I do so if we committed I think 15,000 divided by 130s 115 hours 39 I would hope that would do what you want for your building 15,000 that's okay, thank you Chris I am I just want to state that per the preschool child care licensing that we do have to have many different gross motor structures on our pre-K playground while like many movable objects are great too that we have we still need building structures and other things that will come at an expense but we'll also bump our playground up to make our preschool program at Remney a five star program instead of its current four star so we're at a four star program when many of the other schools pre-K is in the district or at a five star program because of our playground so our playground has been out of compliance for a really long time with our fencing and with our accessibility and with not having appropriate structures on our playground for pre-K only so we lost points because we were utilizing the older kid playground which is not pre-K compliant or safe enough for them so in order to spend the money now to then kind of look and see when community members will decide do I want to send my child to Remney for pre-K if they're a four star program or am I going to send them to another private school that's a five star program I think that bumps it up to community engagement and kind of trying to bring people in because we are under enrolled right now in Remney pre-K compared to other preschools in the district so then I guess that I also then have the second question of so we talk about the accessibility up so then what about the playground what about the structure what about the money when do we out feel that conversation and money that's up to you if you want to set it aside for work I mean I feel like we have enough money in our capital fund to address the ramp and the preschool playground this is my understanding from the general numbers that we had at our last meeting which I know aren't fixed 416,000 I gave you about 90,000 you're currently just flipping to this so I can make it I don't want to say a number what's in your capital fund without looking at the report of course it's not this one so I mean the last one is 116,000 as of last as of last meeting so I'm in favor of you know actually actually your end of yes 116,000 should we take out the boiler that it does that we're building a ramp to access then we ought to be accessing a site that is also ADA compliant and functional for all preschoolers now is the time to invest and design in that so that we can create the right setting for pre-K is there space within that current small preschool playground to make it so there is room to play the structure that current space is bigger than what's required the last meeting we walked around so there's plenty of space to make it compliant and put appropriate structure within it so can I just get clear on what the board is asking from Black River Design so what we're looking for is a comprehensive plan is what I was hearing when I'm hearing they're not of the playground itself the ADA and the ramp yes the playground we go to we do what we did with the last playground we say what is the type of structures we want and we ask for bids to come back in but I heard at some point a full site analysis I think that was describing the work that needs to happen like to make the access to the building smooth and I think it's also well there's some discussion about having them analyze where would the best site be for the playground if that's within their expertise and in conjunction which playground all of them all of the playgrounds are just the pre-gay I think I think all of them actually because it's an access issue for all of them ultimately so just so I was the way I kind of heard you saying it before too you had mentioned there has to be a drainage work study that would be a comprehensive plan but what you're looking for on hearing in this analysis is short of doing the full amount of work give kind of a rough idea of where it would be and then worry about the details so you guys want to cost that if we put it on the soccer field if we were going to do something up here I think that would be part of the work up it's just basically get a option A would be this and this is why we think it's a good idea option B would be this and this is why we think it's a good idea and this is why each A and B would cost a commitment amount of money toward getting that information toward getting those estimates so they'll have to do a surveying and all of that how much would that run us to do that type of analysis the more you pay the more comprehensive I'm sorry to say that but it's true it's the way it is and I didn't ask John for a quote to do all that work because in the initial cost estimates that you provided us was this was hit not the way you're talking about but was any of it built into it no it was built in he thought that he could do a design for a ramp to get up there for the 30 to 40 that I had in it the design with the ramp construction and the construction we get it done let's get this project done from beginning to end so if we if you're asking for a lot more right now at least how you laid it out of $15,000 that's $15,000 on top of upwards of potentially $100,000 I mean I would say yes using $15,000 to get the information that would then give us the option of which design to go with if we're committed to a design of just going up on the where the playground is now then we can make it committed to that I want for us to take that into consideration because I know when they originally gave the estimates built in he talked about accessibility, access points out of the rooms but not necessarily I wasn't talking about the rooms I was just trying to figure out what we're going to deal with here is drainage water runoff we have a watershed issue here that I don't know we're not dealing with that I don't know what type of things you're going to run into there it is an accessibility issue it may be but we have lots of accessibility issues and we're taking one at a time and I'm sure we're not talking about because the drainage you'd have to dig up the concrete and do construction work underneath to create a better drainage pattern and then runoff runoff treatment we're not talking about that right now I think we should because we're talking about accessibility and the way you get into our building is inaccessible than what that should be like priority number one then we should not be talking about the playground we're not talking about money for all of it I know I raised the question about looking at the options and I raised that because I wondered if there was going to be some answer that said this would be great and solve a lot of problems but I think after hearing all of this the wet playground is potentially now too complicated as an option and it might not be a good use of our money to spend $15,000 to answer that question I was sort of wondering if the answer was going to come from the group or from the audience but it seems like we might be in terms of having limited resources financially we need the best choices to take the access to the current playground and then that $15,000 could be some of what we could use to deal with our pavement access to the doors of the building so that's my rethinking I'm willing to change my mind easily so I have a quick question does anybody in the audience have any thoughts they would be willing to share as to whether or not the present playground that we have up there does that function at all for somebody who needs wheelchair access or once you have a wheelchair up in that area can you just not really move from point A to point B um the grass area is okay the stone underneath the slide structures and the swings not accessible at all wood chips iffy not so much but the grass is okay as long as it's even it's okay the pre-K area tends to be really quite flooded in a large area in the entrance way in front of the shed under water pretty significantly for most of the spring part of the fall so that's where the pre-K playground is now and also the every play item on the preschool playground is not handicap accessible we have that wooden house that is not big enough for a wheelchair the sandbox has no wheelchair accessibility we don't have a handicap accessible swing and we have a balance beam so those are the things that are on our pre-K playground right now and I think the last time I asked this and I can't remember the exact answer but I had asked if we could do things in phases like could we make it accessible with the swing now and kind of do this in phases there's a reason that we couldn't but I can't remember I think Amy spoke about that we have to upgrade the fence like once you start making changes the fence my understanding is no longer grandfathered yep pre-K so then you've lost your playground pre-K you gotta go once you start touching it you gotta the fence that we have is not compliant so per the new licensing regs from a couple years ago or so is that once any construction begins you have to then be in compliance with the new and current regulations so our fence that we have has been grandfathered in but is not up to to par so if we start doing any kind of construction then licensing could come and say we can't operate preschool here because you didn't fix the fence when you did the next one I apologize for my ignorance because I think you already know this but what's the deal with the fence how is the fence compliant or not you have to have a fence of at least four feet of the DM which height is that height and it has to have less than two and a half inches I believe between the bars all around the playground our fence can be climbed by kids and they can get out so we have to kind of go all in when you start doing construction we're just talking about preschool right my understanding there's absolutely no regulations on anything else that we provide for the older kids 88 compliance there as far as like department of department does not have as long as actually our insurance is more stringent than the department of education but it comes to play it's just the truth if we were in Massachusetts it would be a whole other ballgame the department of ed in Massachusetts is much more stringent than insurance companies but our insurance company is the one that actually certifies our playground can we have a just basic assessment on the prioritization on accessibility issues so we're at least saying an important issue in terms of accessibility and working down the list John can do that for your overall I'm assuming you're asking that in terms of overall accessibility for your building so John can do that but in terms of what we're doing now is there a sense as I'm assuming access to the building for a wheelchair in terms of getting in and out is a priority for this upcoming year can we just say for all instead of for wheelchair yeah for all so that would be a priority access to the current playground would be a priority the access to the building can be a multifactorial issue access issue from the parking lot to the sidewalk then to the building it's the type of material and what happens to that material usually stay mat to a parking space is usually what's done at a minimum so you know the gray material that's usually a minimum for the best is asphalt with drainage and all that so you're not going to, I don't see and our other schools for these issues we view stay mat as a solution can we have an access to that and what I mean by that is getting from the parking lot onto the sidewalk we have a ramp on our current sidewalk right now and is that I think what the improvement that could be sought to make the ramp accessible from where the handicapped parking place is that's what I was just talking about with the stay mat all that like the parking place is here and the access is way over there so moving the handicapped parking space you make a cut to the curb cut to be a new way to put on the curb at the end of the sidewalk and the the third item is which Don can't do but we have a recommendation right is the pre-cape playground structures structures if we have to have this for the next meeting then I think that needs to be part of it we have an estimate I mean I think it's going to run 20 grand specifically to do the pre-cape playground with the stay mat and the beginning planning around some better equipment for kids that's going to be a minimum of 20 grand and is that for a structure that just can be accessible but I mean like is it just kind of a basic structure with some accessibility or is it really like inclusive utility sensory like all of that this is basic and I guess that's where I'm concerned that we're missing a bigger picture of all well you can have wait I think I or they could like plan for it and you could do that that's what I've been asking yeah that's what I mean they can throw in any bad instructors that's why some playgrounds are built for adding new structures every year to many of them have smaller features that you can add in that way within your typical budget a big hit to capital but you know I think bare minimum to get anything that would be facilitating gross motor as well as the imaginary play that our regs really are looking for it's going to take 20 to 25 to just kind of get us in the right including the fence or the fence that was another 10 after that can we make sure that Miss Murray and the other pre-k you know instructors are involved in that design suggest I think I would rather have like a dollar amount I mean they do really well as far as like bringing those voices together into several plans I wouldn't want to like get too rigid of that at this point yeah I mean that's what helped with the last playground is the board you were really wanting to say so this is the amount we're willing to commit to the project go forth and we actually came back a little bit more and you were generous and I was to say sure let's go for that extra more so we need having a target is really helpful and then getting the right people into that design so we have 20,000 from the pre-k we have is that in the middle is that for equipment yes that's in 9.4 that's 30 with the fence so remember I just want to go back to the minutes that you just approved that I'm looking forward in here because I've never looked at my notes from last time that I had here so I just want to make sure if it's right here in the minutes we had said your total of 90 and we had said we had said from my notes here I had had I had 10 for the 10 for the ramp I had 10 for the for the fence we had about 20 for the play and then I'm going to go back to my calculator and make sure I do this right this the ground material that you need to have was did we agree on the matting ground is that what you that's what I'm talking about for the entire hold on yeah it was about $10,000 for the mats for the mats so 10 for the fence, 10 for the mats and 40 for the ramp and we we've been roughly saying about 90 total for this whole thing so does that include the ramp place in and out of the building no, no, but those the ramp way, I mean what we were talking about for the classroom door that goes out is that we built some wood ramps so that's that can be done on your maintenance budget but this is the access thank you the front is not the surface we need to I was just looking at the memo I gave you last time so I heard I know that we have a real flooding problem out there and I'm wondering what I mean I would hope that we would take care of that at the same time and I don't know if this statement would take care of that or if not then we're going to rebuild the playground up there we're going to do the site work around it so he's not flooding I think that can fit within the estimates that we have for the ground material and for the fence and for all that I don't think that's a big deal for any of that it's a big cost the bigger cost I see is for any site work it's the ramp so it's primarily drainage it doesn't frost the ramp's not directly to that I understand but remember it has to be handrails the whole way and we've got to secure those with footings and we've got to have in order for anything in Vermont not to freeze and thaw which it will you've got to have drainage down at least three or four feet or we have ledge up there and we've got no drainage to the water between the ledge and whatever is between that and the subsurface and the ramp itself so good Megan you've done you've done well Joanne and I had noted that cost-effective solution for the ground is that Lexi had noted that the grass is okay and so we not doing the entire pre-K playground with the same out or whatever it is the rubber material those rubberized material and don't think of the ones that I'm glad Alison you asked us last time it's not the ones you would see in a gym they have cushion to them right we want grass and trees I think everybody does and then I also went to Oakledge park for all in Burlington this past weekend to just check it out they just built a a new accessible playground and it's if anybody has a chance if you're ever out in Burlington it's a great spot to go they just added they had the seven universal principles for design hanging on their board and they did have some great play structures from landscape structures so they do a lot of handicap accessible places and also play works and comp and which I know that Amy used comp and before for the other playground but so those are the three places pretty companies that I have research that have some good handicap accessible structures can you make sure the context for those are in the minutes if you don't mind? landscape structures are we at a crossroads? I feel like we are either ready or not play works do we want to call them with a K I think we want to commit to setting yourself okay but we want to just have it so that we can have reports of fact on the different phases sounds like the first phase is going to be design and this is what we think the design is going to look like and this is what we think it will cost so that we can start doing the estimating and researching and finding out what is really up there we're aware of it as it goes on it goes to here's $90,000 and you don't need to report back until it's done and delegate the authority to sign contracts which is essentially what we're doing because Black River is not doing that at all in terms of the building the playground so we want how we want to handle that then open to any other options that folks may have more to discuss so are we on the same page that we want to get a ramp up to the upper playground and put a pre-K area in the upper playground including a fence and a stay mat and I think the thing that didn't have a dollar value attached but I think we need to commit funds to is that access to the building in front I don't know if that's a question mark but Black River can tell us what we need to do in the front so they can design it I think you're I just don't know because I haven't had the conversation with John about working on design on that and the other things should be funds that will be a school board deciding these issues as probably as of July 1 and so that could be something that they need to do and I informed the new board chair of this conversation tonight about the ADA issue with this school that would need to be covered by the new board when he and I were together today I said hey just so you know this is something that's going to come to your board because you're going to have to ADA as an issue that a whole school needs to be so I would be in favor of because our bracket and board calculations have consistently come to this number saying $70,000 I'm sorry let me give you one second for the ramp dealing with the footing that's one company that would do that then there's a whole separate company that deals with the actual playground structure and we're looking at I thought something under $20,000 to that so we could approve is that an everything black paper would deal with $70,000 items combined I want to check with John but if you were to commit to the concept of that design needs to be done by the appropriate folks I'm going to tell you who the other people are for the playground pieces first off we need to get a cost estimate and I'd like to do it for one location for what it's going to take for my Johnston design because I'm right where Mary Lynn is and say hey let's get as much as we can into that playground structure and play it for the kids so it's kind of knowing knowing that and I think this is where you were going Allison that you were trying to break it into two different components and I'll go either way with you but this is the amount we're going to spend on this issue it seems like it's two things one is all the site work and ramps and that's the playground company doesn't do that and the playground company does the playground equipment they do the equipment and the matting as I believe then it would have to be 30 and 60 because we were calculating something like $10,000 for actual putting around the structures matting not drainage but just matting structures so we could say we could authorize $60,000 so come back to us with a design that we approve to get up there deal with the drainage up at the top and get a fence in the pre-K area and then we could authorize again a design for up to $30,000 for matts and structures and then hopefully we would get estimates and come back but we could approve or not approve is that reasonable would that be a separate if we want to do it all together we have to add in more money for the project maybe we should do it one time I think we have to know what we're talking about first in terms of what it's really going to take to I mean we should know that before we can because we can't commit well I mean I look at that I think it's a significant project to take up all the taking up all the concrete figuring out how to work the drainage probably include some piping and drainage maybe digging into the drainage I just don't know Chris that's why I say we already know where the storm water folks are we're in phase two of that work right now but we need to commit some funds to design it to get to it yeah would that be black river that's black river that's all black river do we want to come up with a Chinese name for what they are designing do you have any sense in terms of what the cost would be to have this area out here meaning the drainage would be unstable I just had a stay mat put on my driveway and a culvert put in for $22,000 so I cannot imagine that this is cheap this has got to be a $50,000 project at least so I mean we could pop a number on there and say something like come back just with something that's $60,000 or less I think we should bring the money to figuring out what the project is and get an estimate on for what that is for the front I would I liked where you were going for the others so we can get going on that but for the front have committed some money towards what's this going to cost us to get as a cost system to repair this and fix what we have less than a work fix do something that's going to stay for 10 years there's nothing that stays permanently with concrete and asphalt to stay the wrong and the reason we're doing this in two different phases for this, for the front of the building is because we have no back-of-the-envelope estimation for I didn't come with you for a back-of-the-envelope estimation for the front of the building and we just we don't have as great as John gave us a day for the back half a day or whatever that was we just don't know what's out there so I think knowing certainly commit funds to knowing what there is commit funds to find out what we need to know and can I hear again from everybody that you want him exploring one site not multiple sites for the playground so then we'll put that into emotion that would be great that's why it hasn't been clear at least okay so do we have consensus everyone? okay if anyone takes a try at emotion then we'll make sure it's inclusive as as much as we and accessible take the motion Christy this is just a tentative motion okay subject to word I move that we commit $90,000 toward accessibility to the playground to include no to accessibility issues to include accessibility to the playground in its current location to include a ramp to include rehabilitation of the pre-K playground so that it is accessible to include new structures for the pre-K playground and any drainage that needs to be accomplished to ensure greater accessibility to the pre-K playground in its current location in access in and out of the building design well no construction actually you're talking about a small small stuff does that need do you feel that needs to be I don't need that in there I don't need the building pieces that we talked about last time because that's something we're just going to get done this summer out of the maintenance budget okay is that on the project list for where the project list exists right now we're still getting that taken care of and so that's my motion I think we omitted the part about designing access for the front of the building I think there's a separate one does that seem to be when you put it in but that includes the play equipment too I think it's better to create a small inclusive and that's up to getting a good design did you get that can you repeat it back it's pretty good motion to commit 90,000 toward accessibility issues to include accessibility to the playground in its current location a ramp location of the pre-k playground that is accessible new structures for the pre-k playground new fencing any drainage that needs to be accomplished to ensure greater accessibility to the pre-k playground in its current location the only thing I would request to modify is to figure out the accessibility issues we can just say to create accessibility to playground create accessibility and take out, I'm sorry accessibility issues let's remove that so as far as discussion does anybody in the audience who have any feelings about whether or not you all think this would meet the needs of present and possible future students does this feel like a reasonable option sorry I'm trying to be honest do we need to include in that to be, is it assumed that it is then compliant with whatever you also need to get the five stars well I don't know we can say that because we don't know we'll have all the play equipment that's hard to say and we could be limiting on that but Dan you're the expert so stop me when I go off it's hard to know always how things are scored how it's scored I guess I was just thinking when we are including the fencing and gross motor equipment that it is assumed that those will then meet the standards but I can't say that because how someone comes and judges and scores us it would be in compliance of licensing regulations maybe that's the stars versus licensing just that we're in compliance different tiers what we're doing before here you haven't seconded the motion I seconded it before it was re-read I'll second the motion in its division do we need a part of it to select Black River no because actually the awarding of contracts to an architect does not require an RFP and I don't need your motion to say that so we use Black River for all the work around the SU except for one building that has experience with different architect and this this facility has a track record Black River so I would want to switch it because we're not going to restart plans and elevations and all that but then in terms of the playground structures when that comes up that will be a conversation with probably one of those three that Deanna just talked about or another comparable of that same type in a conversation with whatever board is in probably and as was said with experts that are at that developmental level there were many different types of positions that were mentioned in the audience and I think they should all be part of it and probably even some other community members parents and just like we did with the last one I mean we did an awesome job of working with the kids and let's look at different options and design and just so I'm clear this puts aside Chris's other idea of kind of doing an overview of what would be the possibility for other sites in terms of the playground it's committing to a direction yep clear enough okay okay any other discussion we need a second motion on that we just repeated we need a motion on this man all in favor no opposed good I'm going to make a second motion to commit $6500 for evaluation in estimate for analyzing the area outside of of the mean interest rate to the school and around the side of the school we address accessibility and drainage and a sense of what needs to be done out there to address the unevenness unevenness of the access to the school and $65 the guy is $135 divided by $130 is 50 hours and I know that he would pull years and stuff like that John works well I should talk was that a motion the shorter second modification that you say that the motion be would like to retain an architect to not exceed $6500 for rehab access I'll take that for a minute I'll second discussion why don't we nitpicky we have an hour and a half to reach a agenda item here get ready guys so your life savers would you request an estimate on a plan because I feel like I don't really entirely know what that's that's what you're going to get a plan but why don't you throw in there and a cost estimate so I guess what I'm saying is I feel like we ought to be able to get a cost estimate for what a plan is going to be rather than I agree that we're picking $6500 maybe that's a good price to start that's why I'm saying to you maybe you should amend it and include a cost estimate the cost of a plan I'm suggesting that we do it in two stages an estimate for how much a plan is going to be given the groundwater issues we might have a plan that's quite a bit more expensive if we need to deal with treating groundwater and where it's blowing I feel like it could easily exceed that or maybe it doesn't have to be as much but if we say $6500 and it only needs to be $2,000 how is anybody going to make I don't know it just feels like we should just ask for an estimate for what a plan is if it's a big ticket item do you think it's too much money I just have no feel for what a plan is going to cost and I think I don't know if they're going to end up having to do digging test pits to see where water is draining and it feels like maybe if we had a plan if we had an estimate of what they would need to put into it then they could make the plan that we need an estimate for design an estimate for design because I think there's going to be multiple parts involved with fixing the front of the building that's kind of what we're looking for but I think when you say not to exceed I think you're going to get as much as John can give you up there with a cost system in it and if he needs more detail he'll probably come back to you and say hey I need more than $6500 I don't think it's going to take up to $6500 because I just know from the construction we have a lot of detailed elevations about front we don't have it from the back because at one point we're looking at paving that whole circle and it's kind of uncomfortable that John is going to be able to give us if that only costs $1,000 he's going to charge us $1,000 that's one of the reasons I like work on a block over there they're good about saying the year it's in they're not going to read the notes John's good but he's just a great guy to work with he's good to say that's what it takes and I want to get you there one thing I'd like to see explicitly considered is the maintainability of it because we all do and staff like one of the hardest things I think about the accessibility is not just the unevenness of it but just the freeze they constantly have packed snow that just doesn't get salted but it doesn't get cleared off and whether that means concrete heating or some other aspect of dealing with the packed snow and ice that is constantly there I think is going to be a big factor for the accessibility and so I want the maintainability considered in addition to just what the basic cycle is is that something I would think I would imagine I would expect that that's a very good point David is that that would be insured as part of creating an open access space how do we ensure and that's making sure that it's clear I would imagine that would be kind of a happy part of the expectation of the building right is that we have to have so it's not packed with ice or snow I mean David that's something that can be incorporated into the building is like the thing of the concrete itself kind of like wiring high pipes or radiating just if it's possible thing whether it's worth getting it possible I mean maybe we shouldn't have David move too far we're going to have to but I'll just talk a little about that whether it's being feasible I'm okay any other comment on the motion stuff it's a process it's a process can we can we read the motion just so we can to obtain an architect for $500 for evaluation an estimate of analyzing the area outside of the main entrance way to the school and around the side of the school to address accessibility, drainage and get a sense of what needs to be done to address the unevenness of the access to the school so that was the wordy there can we scrap that motion that one I move that we commit up to $6500 for an estimate more addressing the accessibility in front of the building but yes we should probably include the side of the building the main pathway to the building the front side entrance the front entrance the main pathway to the building and I'm sorry can you second it any more discussion one favor can you close one passes do you want to take a break one two three so next up it's going do need more in the back we're going to have a minty cloud Okay, next up is, um, discussion of the, of the, of the, of the, of the, of the, of You just committed up to 90 and you had 116. So now you're down to Okay, and what's in the general fund balance? There's about 116,000 right now, the general fund balance. And you'll need to go, you need to do, do, do, do, do, do, connect. Sorry. Give me two seconds. I'm putting a note to call John tomorrow morning, so I'm just going to show you. Do we need to factor in the 6,500 to that figure, too? Yeah. Yeah. So that was 965. 965. So right now you have in your total budget for this year, and this is one of the things we'll be talking about on the 17th, is 3.3. All right, so you have your, one of the recommendations Lori and I have been working on is that one and a half or is it 2% to cross over in fund balance, so that needs to stay in the checking account as you cross years here. We're thinking it's probably going to be 2%, we're trying to get down to one and a half that we're going to recommend to all elementary schools on June 17th. And 2% is that of the budget? Of the overall budget. And what is that number? The overall budget is 3.3 million dollars, 66,000. It is 2%. You need to leave, you have 116 in there, so I was about to do that difference for you right now. 50. Yeah. Or so. 50. So 50 plus 25. It was 75. Yeah. And that's without any contingency for your project. So it's 75? It can be about 75. And that can change, but that's where you are right now. 75 is what's left over to, is that what I'm hearing? Yes. That's like putting all the pennies in the jar. Yep. Now didn't you also say last, that we were looking at 5,000 to 10,000 in just soft maintenance costs, things that weren't going to come out of the capital budget were going to be coming out of the operating budget that we needed to factor in? Yeah. We were taking care of most of those through the operational budget this year. I think those are in closeout of like 99.9% sure. But I can ask that question more. Those are in closeout. So we're not, we don't need to factor that in. I think that would be something. Yeah. I think we signed for all those. Yeah. The only thing we haven't signed for is that the contractor hasn't been selected. Right. But you know what that is, I think we can do that in this year's budget in the last hour. So the answer is yes. Sorry. Does that speak to, Brian, you had mentioned stuff in the budget before that little things that maybe needed to be done. Is that what you're speaking about? I think so. The last, at the last meeting when we were kind of doing this similar analysis, Bill mentioned, you know, the 116 that we had left some of it was going to, like five to ten needed, was going to be spent on just little things. Yeah. We're trying to, I mean, our goal, what we're doing this year, and this is a tactic with all the elementary schools, a little bit with U2 but not so much, is that any like maintenance, anything that we can pull out of this year's budget, because we're usually, we don't mind rolling over with extra cash and fund balance, but we're trying not to do that. So we're trying to, you know, basically spend it now as much as we can. Can you roll the board, it's committed to the two percent amount? Yes.  I shouldn't say it yes that way. All boards are committed to rolling as much as they can into their capital funds. I mean, rolling over into an operational fund for the new. I can't operationally say anything smaller is responsible. Okay, but I'm asking you, all the boards, it's still a board decision, right? Yeah, and I can't say yes or no to you without having all the boards in one room. Well, have you heard from any that they're not committing to that? No. But I haven't heard from anyone that they would commit to that either. Okay. I'm just going to give it right back to you. No, I know. I know. So are you over the first meeting that you raised the topic? No, it's, I've been, even if we didn't have this for a couple of months, I've been, you know, saying we're all trying to move it into our capital. No, I know that. And I said to everyone on June 17th, I've been saying this for two months now, on June 7th, it was going to be June 5th, but now we moved it. So it's June 17th. We'll give you all an estimate at that time exactly where it's going to be based on what the flow of cash is going in and out.  And then now we'll go into the general fund balance. We also know, we've also commented, I've said this in other meetings, we think U32's fund balance will basically take care of what the new fund balance will be for the Merge District. You don't need to keep, I mean, all together. And we've given you some reports for many 80 years now that there's combined fund balance between all six schools of about $2.1 million. With the entity as large as Washington Central Unified Union School District, we only need a fund balance we think of somewhere around $600,000 to $750,000. So we can take a lot of those funds and invest it into schools and to learn what it means, whether it's facilities or whatever. And because there's a bigger, the risk gets spread out over with your entity. So you don't need the, the 4% was kind of pulled out of thin air at some point many years ago. There's no golden rule. It's a risk analysis calculation. That's why if we were Dodie, they don't even use the 4%. They use, like what's the biggest cost going to be in these $75,000. Okay. Okay. Can I just ask for clarification? At the May meeting, it was my understanding that there was in the funds expected to be available after the merger enough money to make the acoustical renovations in the gym happen. And that was probably $90,000 or so. Can somebody explain to me how the $66,000 or whatever it is that's 2% have that dropped out? Because I don't understand what, what it's... So what's happening is with the, you can't take all the money out of the general fund on July 1st and put it into the capital fund. You have to allow some money to be in that general fund to keep the place. You've got to pay bills and there's other pieces that we need. We can't take out, I've been saying to the boards for six months now we can't empty everything out of the general fund and put it into a capital fund. But is that money that will sort of reappear later? It'll be in the new entity. It doesn't mean the new entity can't use it and commit it towards getting, whether it be capital projects or not, it just, it will be in the new entity. Is that money used to paying ongoing expenses like salaries and things like that? Or is it not? It's a cash flow situation piece, the way Laura's explaining it to me. So but it's for ongoing bills like salaries, while we're keeping the lights on or paying... All the above. All the expenses that are caught happening 12 months a year. So where does the funding, if the budget passes, where does that funding then come into play? For operational expenses, ongoing operational expenses. Anything that's billed after... So here's the thing, when electricity happens, you don't get billed on the 30th of the month. All the electricity bills, I don't know what our day of the month is for revenue. It's different for all six bills. So part of that's going to be, let's say it's the 20th of June. The 20th of June bill will be paid out of the revenue budget, and July 20th bill will be paid out of the revenue budget. Okay, so this 2%, 66,000 dollars. Is that money that isn't all used will revert? You'll see it as a revenue into the new Washington Central Unified Union School District. It won't come back to me. Okay, so reason for that? Because that's the way the accounting rules are. That's all I can tell you, Chris. We run under GAP and under Handbook 2 for education rules for accounting. I swear I leave it to Lori, and Lori is the expert. It sounded like what I also heard was that while 2% is the prudent amount to keep in your fund balance, after all six boards commit their 2%, we will actually have quite an excess of money in the new district's fund balance. I haven't done that calculation, Katie, so I can't say that. I thought that's what you just said. What I can say is that right now we have a real excess of money because of all, everyone keeps separate fund balances. And that total, that separate, is about 2.1 million dollars. Of general funds. Of general funds. We know we need about 600,000, or our estimates right now are between 600,000 and 750,000. It's a $150,000 swing. Lori, and I think I'm siding where there's a lot more comfort around the 750 area to keep on for all in the new entity. But if we only funded 1.5% in our fund balance, that's a difference of $15,000. Right. Which it seems like the fund balance among all the schools going into a potential merger is in excess of the $700,000. Yes, it is, but most of the majority of that fund balance sits at U32. So at U32, of that 2.1 million, almost half of it is U32. Which it should be, it's got half the students, it's got half the students. That's a unified fund. And we thought, I want to give credit where credit's due. This is a Stephen Bellinger paid idea, which is a great one, I think. It's already owned by all five towns. Why not use that for its fund balance? And then, you know, the new board could say, hey, we didn't use that revenue of the extra 66 from Rummy and whatever it is for the other four. Put that into the capital fund. I could see the board doing that. But I just don't want to speak for that. That's a decision the unified union board will have to make. And I think they could because you're going to see any fund balance that comes in as an excess revenue. That's the way it works this first year. And then there will be fund balances every other year after that. So in terms of the general rehab issue, I would like to make a motion that we commit as much as possible toward that project. When we reconvene on the 17th, when we have a better idea as to what we'll have available to us. But then we take that up again on the 17th of June. That would be my recommendation. I second. Is there just a proposal? I don't know if we need to make a motion. But a sense of the board? I disagree. But I mean, I disagree with the original proposal. I love the idea. I mean, if we had limitless funds, I would love to completely renew our gym. But that money comes from somewhere. I mean, it's like saying, oh, we're getting a grant to do this. So you can kind of spend it willingly. Even that offends me. It comes from somewhere. It is somebody's money. We have windows that need to be done. I feel like we have so many things in the school we need. And to me, that is just not... I feel like we have to address the priorities. And to me, that is not a priority is to be able to have... Believe me, I would love to, Elliot. And the proposal that you brought is amazing. But I don't... When we are cutting money here and there, I just do not see how we can possibly try to spend $90,000 to make a space that, you know, for the community to enjoy as a music and get together space that feels irresponsible to me. Not that I don't think it's a good plan. I do. But I feel like we have other things that are more important. There are other fires that need to be put out before we can go make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. So I think that all of this is an impact that has on students during the day. So it's not only a community meeting issue. It's also a student quality issue. But is it part of the job of the school to teach students how to be able to deal with their sensory issues? Because that's going to be part of life everywhere. So we can help students deal with these issues. We can find ways to... I think it's about creating a more inclusive environment that's comfortable for students. And that room is gym, cafeteria, and auditorium. So it is a very multifunctional space that serves a lot of needs for students day and night. So I think that has a big impact. I think that's true of a lot of gyms at a lot of schools. So for me, I do kind of... I understand and agree about sensory issues, but I feel like it's more of a want than a need. I do feel like there are things that need to be properly addressed. I think we also have to think about a couple of things. One is whether students spend the bulk of their day and if we're thinking about sensory issues are the places that they're spending the bulk of their day addressing those in the most effective manner. That's appropriate, which I would imagine is a classroom. But the other issue that I don't think we haven't talked about with this is that we are going to be basically have depleted all of our capital funds at this rate, especially with only putting in 40,000, is that the new board, that you guys are going to be faced with the situation of having to start to rapidly ramp up the capital fund in this building in order to pay for the needed things that need to happen. And so in order to do pay for those costs, what's the alternative that's potentially cutting staff? So I think that's the longer thing to take into consideration. Even our tech budget hasn't been like we have an ongoing tech budget that we haven't been able to, with our reduced capital fund, there's no way to pay for that, I don't think. No, there's no tech budget still set. It's set, okay. It has a constant number over here. It's staying. So, one room is it? Yeah, we can do that. Can I just ask that the board is going to be on the 17th? We are, but not here. U32. Thank you, 32. Can I ask around the board? Yes. Okay. And then you'll have better financial information. We will. I did want to say something about the sensory and their issues. You made a really good point about they don't spend all the day in the gym with sensory issues bleed over outside of the one spot where it happens. It bleeds into the rest of their day, into their classroom, into the interactions with friends in the hall, into their day, and it's an everyday thing. I'm not fighting because I get where you are with the money and it's a big amount of money. It's more than what you have left. I'm not saying one way or the other, but you have to look at the sensory issues, too, that it's a big issue for kids. And these are young kids. So, when they're dealing with sensory issues, yes, we can teach them, but it takes time. It takes a lot of time and it takes more capacity than they sometimes have. So, then they bring behaviors back to the classroom. It disrupts everybody in that classroom. You know, we did begin setting up a sensory room to begin to address some of the ways to support students. And, you know, I feel like that project has not been completed or is it done sufficiently? And I know that we lack sensory quality issues in this school. Yeah. I mean, she was more than willing to bring her equipment, et cetera, but it's still a shared space. And if the board is interested in doing something of that nature, there are many ways to address that student need that allows for that. I think there's a note. I'm not saying what it is, but I wanted to say that there's a need. So, are we tabling this, then? This is Paris. Shall we do the Paris system now? The Paris training issue. If you want to add a Kelly's thing? Don't worry, Kelly's in there. I'll probably add some to it. Sure, that would be great. Thank you. And here is this for people that need it. I know some people have electronic problems. So, Kelly, shall we from Maryland? Chris, do you want to take a break from Maryland? Yeah, let's take a short break. That's it. Okay, we're back in the beginning. Go back in? Okay. Back in so you want to start up with reading from Kelly. I'll give you that, Kelly, or maybe I'll add a little context and I'll have short readers. So, I just wanted to kind of rewind on this a little bit. About two years ago, I was a student. I was a student. I was a student. I was a student. I was a student. I was a student. I was a student. I was a student. I want to get a little bit. About two years ago in labor management, the ESP Association, which one is not part of or do we is not part of, but the other four, we started bringing up an issue that we were contracting out more and more for contracted workers to come into Washington Central and work and in positions to aid students. Our two main contractors for that are Green Mountain Behavior Associates or Washington County Mental Health. probably on the board orders. We started having conversations that it would be better to have, and we were having issues, which this school's experienced as well, is that sometimes we don't have hiring rights over the contractor on who they bring in, they can bring in whoever they like. We've had issues at this building and others where that hasn't worked out, and that's not been good for kids. So we came to an agreement and finalized it at negotiations this spring. And two years ago, we did an MOU because we were in between contracts that we could hire our own behavioral interventionists and personal care attendants. That came into the latest negotiations for ESP for the other four schools, and we agreed upon that we would do that, and we agreed upon job descriptions and how job descriptions and how trained would occur. We also agreed that, and this is something that was done in the MOU and we stayed with, is that they would be paid at a rate because they needed other qualifications above what a paraeducator needs to have, that it would be a 10% increase to the current pay scale. And the big agreement we came to was that we had this big idea that is it better to have our own staff who are trained and can stay with kids for multiple years, but that's the other thing with contractors usually they don't stay for more than a year or they can pop around and go to another. That it'd be better to have our own staff trained and that we can keep them for the longevity with the students. And that it would be better for the association because they would have, we have a recognition clause. For any of those who used to association union agreements, there's a recognition clause of the job positions they cover and that they want membership. Who is the recognition clause? The recognition clause means that we recognize that for this case it'd be the one, it's not in Romney but for the Romney teachers that the Washington Central Teachers Association represents them and that folks that are in the association and now because have rights to be part of that, people that are teachers or those types of jobs have the right to be part of the association. When the Supreme Court struck down the Fair Share Act in all states, it's been about eight months now I think, all right, it's somewhere eight to 10 months I see Dave say, so. That it's, that we can't, the association can't compel everyone to be part of the union. They have a right to access it. And that the, and that the contract that's there that's agreed upon represents the contract for all folks in those job class, those job categories that are covered. So that's really kind of like it's the, that general contract covers all those job class applications. So one of the things that I did my first year here and it had been happening under Robert Brooks before I was here but by the end of my first year it had been done as we made sure that folks that had equal experience, not year serving but equal experience were being paid the same rates at Doty and Romney as what we're happening in the union agreement. And we re-audited that again this spring because as we knew we were moving to one entity we really wanted to ensure that. I also checked with Scott Cameron, our attorney to say Scott, what happens with Romney and Doty? They're not represented. Do they automatically come into the union? Do they automatically not? He actually advised me to have a conversation with Romney and EA, which I did not but he did some looking for us and he believes that the site has to vote to become into the union. Not for the individual. If they vote to become part of the union individual members can choose to become or not. And the analogy for this that I think works better if it's at a larger scale. If you think of the United Auto Workers they have a contract with Ford. Now Ford has several plants. Not every plant has to be part of the union till that site votes that they wanna be part of the union. And then I'm using the exact same analogy Scott used with me and I thought it was brilliant. And then once that plant is then workers in that plant can choose to join. So it's physically site specific. So Romney decided to join the union they could and Doty could stay out. Doty chose. They did go in and Romney did not. But it's a vote of the folks that are in those job classifications at that site. And then individuals can choose. So one of the things that Romney did years ago as a board, which was great. You decided to give all the same benefits to your non-licensed staff. I wanna try to say it that way. All your non-licensed staff as what was happening across the district for those that were in the association. Except for one regard that was different. You had them allow them to have access to municipal retirement. The states from the municipal retirement. We've never had that in anywhere but central office. The rest of the ESP only had access to a 403B retirement system. So in this new negotiated agreement we also agreed to add municipal retirement. So that folks that are out in ESP and the other have access to municipal retirement as well. You may say, what's this have to do with training staff? It's just so you understand, we have to get everything to one because the labor law and Chris, you probably know this 10 times better than I do. Probably don't. Oh, you're not a labor law. I thought you were with all your. More Wisconsin 50s than I would tell you yes, but the labor law I would say no. So what Scott said to me is you cannot provide unequal compensation for people working the same job within one organization. And that just makes sense, right? So if we have a paraeducator here at Romney and a paraeducator at U32 with the same job classification with the same number of years of experience, they need to pay equally and they may have to have access to the same benefits. And I would say that depends on the contract actually because the NPR just had, where they negotiated two tier to a newer employees and older employees doing the same work and trying to get away from that because it was urgent. But anyway. That's what the advice Scott gave me. He said, you wanna make sure you're doing everything the same. So the nice thing is we have all of our, from Carla did the analysis. Oh, it was probably a month ago or finished the analysis a month, six weeks ago, saying, hey, everyone in Romney does, there are a couple of people who had to adjust those. It wasn't anybody at Romney, but we've got everyone paid where they should be based on their experiences and based on the salary scale. So we said, okay. And then what happened was, Kelly, we've been working on this project to get BIs and PCAs as a job class into the negotiated agreement on the idea of let's get more people in and so we're not working on contractors. It's gonna save us some money and we'll have people that are our own employees, which will be much better for students. So Kelly put out, from the negotiation of that contract, we said, hey, we're not gonna tell everyone they have to take. It's a choice whether they would like to take the training. And if they take the training, does that mean they're a BI or PCA? No, it means that they have access to do that. And if you have that training, so choose to take the job. And do you wanna tell me if I go anywhere that you didn't either explain today or I forgot. I'm simply like what you told us. Yeah, I'm trying to stay right to that same piece is that you can take that training and then if you choose to take a job that has a BI or PCA, you'll get that 10%. You don't get that 10% extra just because you have the training, you kinda have to do that type of work. You gotta take the job. You gotta take the work. The other question, there were a couple other questions in Joanne, I'm gonna ask you to help me with what I forget from your questions because I thought they were great. They were right on point. But was if I become a PCA and a BI, does that mean I get moved around? I mean, that's the big question. Do I get to get moved? Do I get moved around? And the answer is I can't tell you for tomorrow. I can't tell you for two years from now because student need changes. We wanna have people. We know that long-term longevity with students, with coworkers is better for school systems and better for kids. So we wanna keep that.  And so having that training, will that help you? Yeah, that gives you more qualifications. The contract with the ESP is a two-week notice when student need changes. If a student decides to move out, it's a two-week notice. We haven't always done that. Sometimes we've cut people on for the rest of the year. We usually have every summer. And I know today, Kelly was working with a special educator, so I didn't get a chance to talk to her because that was after you and I met with her and the rest of the parent educator. Sorry, I shouldn't be just saying, Joanna, it was the whole group. And we said, hey, let's, you know, they're looking at the student needs as we do it every year. We look at it in October, trying to forecast it from a year. We do it again, I would say, where are people getting placed for jobs for next year within the building? I don't know the result of that. So that's what this training is about for supporting people to do that. If they're handed a contract and they decide they might want to do that, they can, or they can stay in a pair after their training. So that's how the training got to be where it is. We're in that implementation, it's bumpy. I'm not going to say it isn't. We'd like to have everything figured out. We're trying to build this and fly it at the same time. Right now we have about 10 to 12 outside contracted positions coming in for VI's and behavior supports across CSU based on this building. And so that's what we've put together, our first training pretty quickly, so people could access it. One of it was because of U32, they have an extra day because they had, as you know, Chris, because you were the executive committee, U32 had to cut a student day just to try to get everything to end. So there was a way of like, hey, like the two days that pairs are contracted, they could take this training. It's not the only time, it's the first time we're going to do the training. We really foresee that we're going to do it in August again, and we're probably going to have to do it a couple of times a year and keep it going. It's going to be one of those things that just happens for folks that want to do it. What is the implementation of? The implementation is of having the training for those who would like to do it because if we can't get enough VI's and PCAs out of folks that are here that want to do that work, we're going to have to go out continue our contract with the outside, which it's moderately successful at best. It's not great. What are the different qualifications that between what a parent has now, which said there are different additional qualifications? So I can tell you everything because some of those, I can tell you some of them, but then it's going to get down to IEP specific because the IEP determines sometimes what the training is that the person needs to have. You need to have greater, for a behavior intervention, so you have to have, you have to be trained in de-escalation skills. So that's verbal. And then you get trained and handled with care, which is our restraint behavior. And you get trained, you have some decision-making protocols that there isn't a need for, or there's one I don't remember. Maybe it didn't help. There are some of those that, it's usually looking for someone with a bachelor's degree, not necessarily, but that's usually the level of a person. And that's what Washington County Mental Health requires is someone with a bachelor's degree to work for them, as a BI. And for the personal care attendant, it's a lot more specialized because it's care, personal care for a child, which could be anything from feeding to bathroom supports. So is currently now in our schools, who are the individuals responsible for potential restraint? If it comes to that? It's either the behavior interventionist, your behavior support person here, the principal. I used to be trained by a loss of my training in them, but a year ago, I've done it in these schools. Or it's contracted, please. Or it's contracted. Or it's contracted. Are they contracted for now? The BI's are, and that's what we're trying to bring in now. Is there any, if the parent just didn't want to go through the training, that parent's child would not be in jeopardy, would it? I can't say that, Chris. That's what people want me to say. And I can't say that because the student need may change. Well, that wouldn't be, so if the parent is already has a contract now. Which they all do. And what? They all do. Are those contracts, are all of them tied to a particular student or are some of them tied to a particular student? All of them are tied to IEPs. So the services, is the services changed in the IEPs? And because you could still have those same kids, but the services can change. That's why I'm trying to be pretty precise here. If an IEP team increases or decreases, services that can change what the student need is. So there was a situation that we talked about not too long ago where there might be a need to change. And this could be a way for the ability to maintain continuity of services. Yeah, can I just give a little bit more for folks that may not. Yeah, I know what you're trying to do, but I think that can help you with this. There was a need to change, and this happens for some kids sometimes, they change from being with a para to a behavior interventionist. Or not tying it to any kid. And so that does happen, and that's happened before with kids. And that may be a way to keep continuity, or at least keep the staff in the building if there's someone that's training a behavior interventionist. It may be, I don't want to say that it is, because we've got to get down to the individual case, but we'll come up. Brandon, is that where you were going, Brian? Yeah, that was, yeah. What's the Medicare reimbursement on a BI that's a para, a BI that is within the school district? I don't have that rate off the top of my head. Am I wrong when I'm remembering that? No, you're right, that there's money for reimbursements for- For the Washington County Mental Health. Or for our own that we hire, we can do reimbursement ourselves. We can. Yep. And who pays for the handle of care training? I think that's $2,000, so you guys pay for it? Oh, we've been paying for it all. We have in-house trainers for that. We have two people, Michael Sherwin. I'm glad you said that because that reminded me of that, Matt. Yeah, I don't know if he's believing, he's one of our trainers. He's one of the trainers? Chris Malone. Chris Malone is now a trainer? Good. Kelly was thinking. Yeah, so Chris and, oh, and Eric Bennett at U32 is a trainer as well. Is there a concerns then, Joanne, just? Well, everything that Bill said is that on-face is absolutely true and I don't think anybody would contest it. I think the other side of the coin that maybe isn't being addressed is more philosophical and I'm not sure that, I don't know if that's where we need to go with this or what it is, but I think one thing that you didn't mention from Kelly's letter, it was important. Yeah, I didn't even read Kelly's letter. I think you should, if you read Kelly's letter, I think that's like the right context. I'm not certain as to why this is on pair training staffing. I'm not certain as to why this is on the agenda, however, in order to inform your discussion without being present, I thought I should have some pieces of information. Please see the attached FAQ document as it was shared with all the pair and education staff across the district related to this issue. So it's a two-pager, looks like this. And Kelly's had other emails out to staff that you always want to say that. Superintendent Kimble and I met with the pairs from Romney this afternoon. He answered specific questions. This was a plan early last week about this. I also met with the special educators at Romney to begin looking at pair assignments for next year. All pairs have been informed of what their assignments will be given, what we currently know about their student population. As you know, things may change over the summer as we never know which students will remain with us and who might move in. Based on the information we have today, the special educators and I are able to let folks know what their assignments look like. That wasn't, I didn't know that one. That wasn't what I was talking about.  I'm glad to do it. Well, I just, I think it started with something about best practices and that's kind of where my philosophical difference is. Based on best practices, it is assumed that every child should be taught by the most qualified teacher. Which on the surface, who could argue with that, right? It sounds perfectly reasonable. But as a para, who is an instructional para for 15 years, where I take exception to that is the assumption is that where do you get best practices? If you're going to, any organization that's going to come up with best practices, you have to base it on something. So I believe, I'm not sure, you can correct me, I believe that best practices comes from a combination of the Levinson Report and the UVM study, which is where the legislature has also legislated on. And those two studies, if you say, if you look at those two studies and you accept them as yes, this is the best educational practice then, that's what that says, that's what that report says. That doesn't mean that it is true in any sense of the word. It's just their view on it and it is not a view that I share. So I don't think that that's the only way to deliver quality services. And I also have, for many years, wondered about, all of us Paris have wondered, if the Paris in our building are different from other Paris? And I just have to think that they are, if that's what they think. I mean, we have really highly educated, highly trained, really well supervised Paris. And I would stake my record of teaching the children of my town to read, I would put my record against anybody's record. I'm a really good reading teacher. I'm a really good reading teacher. And I cost a lot less than a classroom teacher. So I don't know that necessarily that that's the, because of best practices, we need to shift our model. If that's what we're doing and I have to accept this because this is what's been told to us, that is what we're doing as a district, but philosophically I don't agree with that. I did want to just say that one thing and this is just my personal take. I got my contract for next year, it's fine. Everything's fine. I don't disagree with anything Bill has said, but I just think that like behind the curtain there's just more to it philosophically and where we're gonna go as a district after this coming school year is the question. So is there any sense that this training is something of a chosen course that will then? Yeah, I think there is. I mean, and nobody tries to characterize it as anything other than that. Nobody can tell us. They don't know. Of course they don't know. We don't, nobody knows. We never know from year to year. Cool kids are gonna be in here and what means there are. But if there's also a philosophy that parents shouldn't be doing education work, to me that does feel a little chosen horses. I don't know. I don't think anything that they said was disingenuous in any way. I think it was very transparent. It was very informative. But personally, I still feel that as a district the direction we're going under value is what I've done for 15 years. And that's a very fair statement. We've had that conversation at the labor management and that's a really fair point to say. I mean, it's some easy decisions to make. How many of our para educators are certified in Wilson or in Dillingham? Any other certification that you need? I'd have to go from across the issue. How many teachers are? Again, I don't have that right here. That I feel like would be helpful information to look at at some point, not now. But moving forward in this direction, that would be information I would be interested in knowing based on what you're saying. Sorry, is someone new to the conversation just to clarify, is that these trainings, is that something that we're offering free to the staff? Yeah, and hand for their days as well. An additional educational. Yeah. And is the concern that this becomes more of the position and less instruction? Right, that's the original letter from Kelly to us made that part clear. It started out, I just remember the beginning of something like best practices stating that this is the way we should go. This is gonna be kind of a new way for you to have job security, which is nice, which is great for them to be thinking about it and bringing in house, I mean, all of these things, that's actually very respectful in so many ways. I don't want this to be adversarial at all. I really do feel like that being the reality, we do farm out a lot of these things and these people turn over like left, right and center, it would be much better for kids to have people in house that are VI's and if that's what they want to do. Many of the staff was hired to do instruction. A couple of the staff were hired to do one-on-one type of work. We've all done more and more of it over the years as the model has changed. But you know, it just, what this whole conversation is leading out is the direction, what is the intentional direction? What do they see three years out, five years out? And I guess I'm under the impression that fewer and fewer and fewer parents do anything except those things. That's kind of what it feels like. Jordan, are you referring to what we reported in an email? Like Kelly gets consent about it, it starts out, you may have heard about it by now, about the change in contract options, that one. I think so, then does it say that, I know the first paragraph says something about best practices, this is one of her. The first, this starts out by saying, hello all, you may have heard by now about the change in contract options added in the recent negotiated agreement. Going forward, there are two positions in the contract behavior interventionists and personal parents have it. These positions require a high level of training and increased job qualifications. They will also be coming with a 10% increase in the pair of pay grids. The hope and tension in WCSU next year is to have a POD and a BI as a support and oversight from the Washington County Mental Health Board to provide behavior analysts and case manager, at least eight, our own BI's, which kind of goes into training and whatnot. Is that what you were referring to? I think there's still another one. Okay. I got that as well, but. Okay. Do you know, is there another letter? I just don't know. I just don't know. So is there, are there only two positions under this new contract? No. Okay. No, these are additional. These are additional. These are new recognized additional positions because they weren't before because we're trying to bring the people on staff. Right. I mean, it's amazing the amount of money we, we're constantly trying to do more with less. The benefit is the need for the VI and the VCA. If you do want to. Increase. Because of bringing students who are here to see not in the supervisor you need, back in. No. We have increased need coming up. Increase need. Okay. I mean, what is happening in our societies affecting our schools. Yeah. Okay. That's all I can say. So, Phil, do you know, if, because I assume that these, since these are tied to IEPs, are these considered one-on-one support type of related positions, or would these be? They're usually one-on-one. Okay. Yeah. And would, so, is it possible that moving forward that the only students that will qualify for that level of support would be students that have in their IEP or VI or VCA required? I can't say that because I'd be conditioning future IEP team meetings. And the team is the only one that can determine support needed for a child. Based on what I'm asking. So you as a board can't even do that. You will condition and think yourself liable for a counter-superparent. I guess what I'm asking is that, are they're going to be sort of as a policy? I can't, no. There will not be a policy or a procedure or a practice on this that would be putting at risk the educational institution. We will do what is required that comes out of the IEP team. I have to be that direct, and that direct and then that's because it's the, the team, the folks that have the right to determine what the supports are, not how they're delivered, but what they are is the IEP team. And they are legally by federal law, given that right, no one else is. 50% of that team is the parents, or whatever, 25%. Well, whatever they're there, but you need to come to agreement. Because it doesn't matter how many people in the room 50% of this team. Yeah. I would agree with that. Any other kinds of moving on? Okay. I appreciate Joanne's thoughts actually. I just, you know, there's 11s in report key through surfacing over and over and over. And I actually think that the UVM study and the 11s in report have some really nice things to say. But to me, the big disconnect that nobody ever seems to address, or I feel like it's unaddressed, is that we keep talking about these really excellent teachers who are super qualified. And the fact of the matter is, we actually have no, as far as I can tell, like, like you say, some of our parents may be, they may fall into that category. And just because they have the name Para in front of educator, doesn't mean that they are not also really excellent teachers. So it would be nice if somehow we could sort of bridge that gap between thinking that you have to have letters behind your name to be good at your job. So maybe push to incorporate the proficiency model that we have for our students with our teaching staff. So I would ask you to go to the state leach, to the state licensure board, because you're the only ones that have control of that, to change our licensing requirements in the state of Vermont. Because I am bound by your superintendent and your next superintendent will be as well as every licensed educator, that we have to meet licensing requirements to be able to qualify for certain job requirements. It's not one that I'm saying I'm behind, I'm just saying those are the rules of the game right now. So if you're going to point to saying that we can't call parents teachers. I can't. Okay, well I'm not saying you can. But what I'm saying is that if we're talking about proficiency-based education for our students, the same type of analysis should probably apply to our staff, because sometimes people with a lot of letters behind their names are not as good in proficient as others. And so going to the skill as opposed to the- I would agree to agree. Just realize I would love to have that system, Chris. I can't implement that under the current regulation in the state. We would. Chris, just hear me again. There's no, I as a superintendent, sign off every year that I ensure that everybody in a teacher position is properly licensed and endorsed. If the state comes back, I get findings on my license for that. I'm not suggesting that you qualify a parent as saying that they're a teacher. But if they are able to deliver the same or better services as a teacher, having them deliver a parent, even maintaining the title as a parent, delivering the service is what I'm talking about. Not saying that, oh, all of a sudden parents are teachers, because I didn't, but there can be philosophical difference of saying, you know, a parent will never be as good as a teacher. No, that's not what I'm saying, but I'm saying, I feel like you're asking me to bend the law, which I do, I do, Chris, I'm sorry, but I'm sorry. I don't think I'm doing that, actually, because if there are instructional powers now. Well, that's not a thing.  I'll say parent educator right now. There are people doing all kinds of jobs, but I've often thought that there should be, there's like the BI and the PCA, that there should be instructional parents, but that seems to be going by the wayside, because of the Levinson report and the UDN study. But anyway, where it could make a difference, Chris, if you're looking, I feel like you're looking for a way to like, let's make this, let's codify this in some way, let's make it better. It all comes down to the IEPs. Right now, many IEPs say the student will see a special educator, X number of half hours, and a week, and another serves with the parent educator X number of times. That is where the rubber meets the road. If it says a special educator, it has to be. If it says a parent, it could be the parent educator or a special educator. You can go up, but you can't go down. So what would have to happen is there would have to be a commitment to saying, how do, what do we see as the best delivery model? Hold on there, you can't sit because you're going to condition the IEP team. I'm saying the IEP team, the IEP team has been influenced to stop doing that, is what I believe. I believe they- Are you saying the IEP team has been- I'm going to use the word directed, but it's probably wrong. I don't know. To stop listening to Paris. No, dang it. I think- I don't know that, but I don't know how, if for all these years it has said, some services are by Paris or some services are by special educators, I don't know how they could suddenly disappear unless they don't write them in anymore. You know what, where are all those instructional things going? When you say there's going to be a new main Kelly side today, there's going to be a new delivery model that maybe what they mean is it might say parent or special educator and they're making a choice to trade up and say, those services are no longer going to be done by Paris. So it says they could be done by Paris. They're going to be done by the special educator because we believe that's a better model. And they could certainly do that legally and not change anything. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that that's what they're saying that they want to do. That might be, that's a delivery model. They might totally be doing that. I'm not saying anybody's doing anything from the fairies. I don't, and I'm not part of the team, so I don't know. But that's the place where Paris, if you have instructional qualified instructional pairs, that would be a place. And if philosophically we believe in that as a district, then an IEP team could be empowered to do that and they could continue to do that and- They are empowered. They are. They are empowered to do that because that's- But then why are they, then why are all the instructional positions suddenly disappearing? I guess it's my question. They're empowered to do that when they're in best where those decisions get made. But then why, so that's my question. Then why does it seem that so many poorly instructional pair of slots are no longer there? Is it just that kids that have to come through don't have them anymore? I mean, I know a lot of you, but you read- Well, Bill, I certainly hear your concern about conditioning the team and what kind of rules it's like, right? I have to say this more, they can't say that either. Right. They individually or collectively. For the school or the rest of it. And I'm wondering kind of what the actual, guidelines and definitions are around that. In part because this conditioning for credentialism is of course something that kind of spans society right now. Right. Speaking of these letters behind your name, there's this kind of expectation that if you have, in the technology industry, if you have a certain set of letters after your name, that it means a particular thing. And I wonder if rather than having kind of been explicit to them, not directing them in any direction, it's just kind of a natural tendency to believe that the letters mean, this is a qualification, just like a job listing that says, bachelor's degree required when a lot of times these jobs don't actually require a bachelor's degree. It's just like shorthand for weeding out people, right? And whether there's something to be explicit that doesn't say you should hire instructional parents, just be aware of the fact that you, when they're available to you, that is still an option, right? Which all the principals know that those are part of the invasive L.A.A.s. I mean, those are pieces that they can, it's part of the L.A.A., it's part of the decision that happens at an IEP team. I can't go anywhere else in a public, I can't go anywhere, I will condition the meeting, whether it's private, public, whatever, I can condition the meeting. So all I have to say is the IEP team is the one who makes this decision. Because I will be putting, as the head of the organization, putting us at risk if I say much else. Of course, just in the interest of time, can we put up time on this discussion? I think we're set, okay. So, okay, thank you for that. So, next up. Do you hear me? In the top. Would you like us to recognize you and the time that you spent here in terms of, you know, do you get anything in mind? Like a community breakfast, staff breakfast, having an afternoon, or should we just devise something? Exotic dancers. What'd you say? Go out for drinks. I think something is already being organized. Is it? I believe that King Johnson has had something up. So. Oh, great. I would suggest that you talk with her. Well, then we can always support that, and we have the sense of the board to contribute to that. And whatever we can add into it. Added in. Not much is necessary. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you for your help, Amy. So, let's, Amy, thank you very publicly for you came into a very difficult school and communal environment. And I think when the school community is in a much better place, I think that you're in place. And so thank you very much. Thank you. Next up we have, the next thing is KC. Do we want to have a community meeting, meet and greet for KC? Sometime next week, or the week after? Yeah, the week after. When is it coming? So he starts July one. There's some days that Amy and he have crossed for, are crossing for here. And then he'll be here from July 1st on as the principal. I think what we want to do is come inside with, when he starts. What would you do with the next school year? Next school year.  Right. In August, I think that would be the best. You'll get parents to be here. It was really fun. And we did it last year. I mean, you've kept the tradition going. So I would just give you a point that Amy's been really great at working with KC already. And say I'm sometimes to come and see the staff and insert us in pieces like that. So thank you very much for doing that. And I know that Janet, Kelly, and I had a conversation this morning about supports from central office. The superintendent transitions happened. But Kelly's going to work with one principal, Jenna will work with the other. They haven't said which is which yet. Are there other mentors? They have mentors. Or support, yeah. I've been in contact with a lot of principal associations to get a mentor going. Yeah. Thank you. Yep. And then the transition team on this agenda was the concept of some members of the current run the staff and faculty community who would be able to be a support team for KCSE transitions into the position. This was just mentioned indirectly, I guess directly to me by several people who said that it would be great to be able to communicate with KC like a special educator, a teacher or a parent slash BI, someone in that support role. Someone from the Allied Arts program about just helping pave a transition into the school and offering that kind of support as opposed to walking into the job with transition team only being offered by say the central office and all of Amy's supports are really insightful but then also the folks who work in the building must have been part of that transition. But I don't have a vision for it. So I would say that Amy did this for the team that was here. She got really excited with the team. I think KC coming those three days when that naturally happened to make that. And I like the idea. So I just think naturally they'll add from some of that and work those three days. It's two or three days. He's scheduled for a half day so it's gonna be kind of blue, sweet and green. And then I have a meeting with literally every team in the building on the 12th. Yeah, I think that was, maybe that's the concept that was raised was an opportunity for representation from people who work here to be able to connect early and build that initiative. It's very constant. What if we could, if there is a, putting out a field for folks who want to volunteer to serve on that team but not just for an initial but over time as a, just to just figure out how nice that people have been in the building by to say, what's the culture? How does it work? Not that you have to be bound by the culture but at least getting a sense of how things run and just to have insight from folks in the trenches and not ignoring it. Yes. It was brought up at a staff meeting while we were creating the schedule by many teachers and special educators and allied art teachers that it would be really helpful and we kind of collectively talked that people that would be willing to meet a couple times over the summer and a good handful of us said that we'd be willing to do that maybe two or three times over the summer. And then like you had said, Chris, a continuing into the school year to help that transition. So there were many staff members interested in that to meet over the summer and I think that's kind of the model you were trying to say, Katie. So do you think that would come better from the staff figuring that out or? Yeah, I think we, I think people that brought it up to the board members just wanted to know if we had to go through the board to get something like that approved or if we could collectively do it at a staff meeting and decide who's available in the summer and who would like to be on a team of that kind. I would also like just recommend that maybe consider let him get through the 12th where he gets a chance to, I've seen the building in action. Yeah, yeah. I think you're on that one. And meet with people and then decide what he needs as far as, I just feel like Casey needs a voice to be Casey and I think it's great that people want to pitch in and all that, but I just want him to have the opportunity to like think about what's going to work in his leadership style. They said the 12th. What? Did you say let him get through the 12th? Yes, of course. Yes, it should. Of June's coming a couple of days early. I mean he swaps in days. Amy, Minor and I talked to Super Telly and we both agreed that swap in some days if he'd be able to go over there. Does that make sense? Yeah, I don't think you need the board okay to teach out to them as a staff. Okay, thank you first. You can do this coming to me closely. Okay, thank you. Okay. So that's, oh, next up is Winter Wellness Program. Do you have any, you know, from Telly on this, though? I do and then Amy's done some work on this. Amy, what else do you want to say for me? The vibe. No, I mean, Winter Wellness was not under threat to be clear. We had shuffled some grant money to be able to move social emotional learning curriculum forward and as it's a fairly small money commitment and very steeped in tradition, I voted for it because I knew we could find the 3,500. So I've already made connections with Lori Bebo to make sure that that money is, you know, earmarked or within our budget for next year. I've also connected with Casey as that's his pot of money and he's in full support of continuing the program also. So. Do Winter Wellness. Yeah. Okay, speak. So, and we're certain then that the concern that was raised was that the money that was dedicated to Winter Wellness got shifted to another source. And I mean, I think from our experience with the budget, the budget was down to the wire on funding. So it was unclear that there was going to be $3,500. Yes, and this is the way the budgets go. Okay, we get more and more sure every day gets closer. But it's certain that there is $3,500 for Winter Wellness. That will not be an issue. So, the answer is yes. Yes. Okay, thank you. I can't speak past the next year, but yeah. I can't imagine that program going away. And I mean, honestly, there's that amount of that that we could find to make it continue. So, should I retell this piece of the list? Sure. Winter Wellness, I'm not certain why this is on the agenda, but I thought I'd provide some context around the change in funding source for this program. I oversee the EPSDT, which is the Health and Wellness Grant that has funded Winter Wellness programs across all our schools. While I oversee these funds, there's a group of folks representing all schools from Washington Cen