Here is the Transition Plan that is to be presented to the Board next Wednesday. Reading through it quickly, I don't see any major changes. Transportation is Appendix A, right at the end.
I certainly feel for all parents. It is a lot to absorb and considering some of it may change in a year or so, even more work is in store.
There are also a few other items of interest on the Agenda.
1) Dr. Enfield's report is on curriculum alignment and STEM. Should be interesting.
2) interestingly (and maybe I just never noticed before) but they have the minutes of work sessions and the retreat on the Consent Agenda. Are there actual minutes of these meetings or just agendas?
3) Interesting capital items. One is for McClure to get some energy efficiency work done under a Washington State Department of Commerce grant. From the agenda item:
"McClure Middle School was awarded a grant during the last legislative session under
sponsorship of state Rep. Reuven Carlyle. The grant is intended for capital improvements that
will improve energy efficiency at McClure Middle School and will be performed under an
Energy Savings Contracting Demonstration Project."
Big thanks to Rep. Carlyle for helping with this effort!
Two, is for Old Hay updates. The problem is it comes under BTA II, not BTA III (where there is currently money set aside for it). Ditto money for Rainier View Elementary. Here's where, as usual, things get confusing. BTA II didn't have money to reopen these buildings. So if they are taking money from BTA II for two of the reopening buildings, why is there money in BTA III for the same thing? And what was the original use of the BTA II money going to Rainier View and Old Hay?
(This is why I harp on the BTA and BEX money. It flows from here to there and back and there is almost no way to say where the money really goes. Someone in the district likely knows but you try finding out.)
Three is work on Salmon Bay and Loyal Heights. I have no problem with the work but frankly, Salmon Bay should be on BEX IV for a rebuild. It is a very old building (1931). From the Meng report:
"The building was partially up-dated in 1970, but has had very little work done to it since then other than new copper water piping and partial replacement of the old wood windows.
Virtually every system and finish in this building is 40 to 80 years old and basically worn out."
(Just an aside. One troubling thing to note about many of the older buildings is that they all have fire alarms but most don't have fire sprinklers or emergency lighting.)
Four, good job district. They saved money on the South Shore work and are using the savings to pay for a new roof for Bailey Gatzert. I wish we could see this happen more often and I wish they would not overdesign buildings so there would be even more savings to pass on for other projects.
Thanks to our readers for this alert on the posting of the Agenda.