All right, let's uh reconvene and um
we'll have Evelyn start with a roll
call.
>> Trustee Lee
>> here.
>> Trusty King
>> here.
>> Trusty Marquez
>> here. Vice President Weekly
>> present.
>> President Wells
>> here.
Uh let's see. I'm going to report out on
close session. So, um, in compliance
with the Brown Act, the board of trustee
reports that during the closed session,
uh, the board took action to initiate
legal proceedings related to a due
process matter under the individuals
with disabilities education act. The
board by a vote of five eyes, zero nos
and zeros abstensions, has directed
legal counsel to proceed with filing a
due process complaint with the office of
administrative hearings against the
parents, guardians of a student within
the district. Uh due to confidentiality
laws governing student records and
special education matters, no further
details regarding this action may be
disclosed at this time. Okay. Welcome to
the August 19th, 2025 meeting of the
Roadwood City School District governing
board.
oo no cinco
de numero interpreta
[Music]
solicron
ms alandondo de loal
uh welcome back to school everyone um
you know it's a warm welcome to our
students our families uh and all the
staff to the 2526 school year um at all
our board meetings we encourage public
participation and invite your comments
on issues of concern. Uh regardless of
whether they are on the agenda, uh if
your comment is for an item on the
agenda, you'll be called when that item
is being considered. If it's for an item
not on the agenda, you'll be called
shortly during public comment section of
the agenda. And then to let us know that
you'd like to comment, if you're here in
person, please fill out a speaker card
uh at the entrance to the room and hand
it to Evelyn. If you're attending via
Zoom, you may fill out the form linked
uh from the agenda or just raise your
Zoom hand when the item is being
considered. And to be fair to all
speakers, we're going to limit public
comments to three minutes per person uh
per topic unless otherwise noted.
Do we have any changes to the agenda?
All right, let's uh go through a motion
to approve the agenda.
>> I move we approve the agenda.
>> Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> All in favor?
>> I Great. Um okay, so no changes to the
agenda. Then we're going to move on to
public comment. I don't think we have
any for non-aggenda items. Okay,
perfect.
>> Um, and then we'll move on to approval
of the bond program consent items. Um,
we'll move this without discussion. So,
is there a motion to approve?
>> I move to approve.
>> Stele. Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> All right. All in favor?
>> Okay. Great. There are no bond program
action items. So, thank you bond team.
Um, we're on to discussion items and our
first item is a discussion of parcel tax
survey findings and recommended next
steps. Do we do have a speaker card for
this one, but well, I think we should do
the presentation first and then take
public comments.
>> All right.
>> Should I hand that to you?
>> Yeah.
>> So, tonight uh we will hear about an
option that could make a lasting
difference for our students and schools.
the possibility of placing a parcel tax
measure on the future ballot. Parcel
taxes are one of the few local funding
tools available to the California to
California school districts. They
provide stable local controlled revenue
and cannot be taken away by the state or
the federal government. As you know,
Reva City School District faces a
structural funding gap because costs are
are rising but revenue is not. We are
carrying spending pressures because we
are carrying spending pressures because
our students cannot do without them well
with the expiration of the one-time
COVID funds which we went through last
year. Um ongoing pressures continue to
um meet not meet the needs of our
students nor the different types of
programs that we want to procure. This
year we are one we are once again
preparing for a round of budget
reductions
and unless we have stable lo local
revenue those reductions will need to
continue in the years ahead.
A parcel tax would not solve this
challenge totally but it could protect
the programs and the services our
families value most. classroom
instruction, student support, safe and
welcoming facilities, and the ability to
attract and retain teachers and staff.
In April 2025, you approved to engage
team civex, Godby research, and SCI
consulting group to conduct an
independent community
priorities survey and technical
analysis.
Tonight's agenda item is the followup of
that effort with Godby research
presenting the survey findings and
Jeremy Hower who is here in person from
team civex sharing analysis and
recommending action for board's
consideration
to help us understand what this could
mean for the Redwood City School
District. They will walk us through
survey results, potential parcel tax
structure, and potential revenue.
Their presentation will provide us with
a clear picture of both opportunities
and considerations so that we can decide
together if this is a path worth
pursuing. So Jeremy Hower is with us at
this point in time and I believe Brian
Godby is online.
>> Yes.
>> Okay, perfect. Welcome Brian.
>> Uh thank you superintendent.
>> Thanks Dr. Baker and thank you members
of the board for having me again. Jeremy
Hower, a partner with Team Civitz. Um,
before we hop into the results of the
poll, I just want to do a quick recap of
where we've been since we were last in
front of you to kind of reorient
ourselves to the process and where we're
at in the process. Um, and and then I'll
kick it to Brian to kind of walk through
the numbers in detail. So, Rick, if you
wouldn't mind going to the next slide.
So, you'll remember we were here in
March of this year um for anformational
session about really everything you need
to know about parcel taxes. the the
legal requirements, the political
requirements. We talked about the
potential for a square footage based
parcel tax and what could be involved in
that. Uh we also talked about potential
election dates and uh recommended next
steps. As Dr. Baker Baker mentioned, we
came back in early April and we got
direction from you all to assess the
feasibility of a potential parcel tax
measure. And since then, in coordination
with Gabby Research, we conducted that
opinion research to answer a few key
questions that we're going to present
you tonight. First and foremost, we
wanted to understand what tax rate
sensitivities exist in your community
and how they might impact support for a
parcel tax measure. We wanted to
understand the funding priorities that
your voters see uh in your schools and
what they prioritize in terms of uses of
funds as they're considering a potential
measure. Um we wanted to see if there
are any potential controversies out
there in the community and we really
wanted to drill down on the optimal time
to go on the ballot. And then finally,
as you know, um this poll was really
structured around a square footage based
parcel tax, which is a structure that
many uh of your neighboring districts
have under explored in the past and
other districts in the Bay Area, but you
have not. And so the poll that we
conducted focused exclusively on a
measure that would be based on the
square footage uh of buildings on any
given parcel. So with that, I'll kick it
over to Brian to walk through the
numbers and then I'll uh come back and
and give some more uh recommendations
and next steps.
Great. Uh, thank you very much, Jeremy.
Uh, thank you, uh, members of the board.
Uh, as Jeremy alluded to, we obviously
conducted a survey for the district. We
looked at a variety of different things.
Uh, first we looked at, uh, several
questions about the district and their p
the voters's perceptions about the
district in terms of quality of
education, management of taxpayer funds,
and potential needs for uh, additional
funding. Uh we also uh as Jeremy alluded
to looked at uh parcel tax measures. In
this case it was a split sample. We'll
talk about that a little bit more. Uh
where we looked at two different
variations based on the different rates.
Uh we looked at a variety of things that
we might spend the money on. Uh we then
tested both positive and negative
statements to see what might happen in
the course of a campaign. We looked a
little more in detail at different rate
structure uh as well as term. Uh and
then we also looked at the perception of
the economy uh in the next year or so.
Uh the survey is based on a wide variety
of demographic and behavioral
characteristics that we use to make sure
the survey is representative and that
includes stratification of the sample on
the front end, waiting it on the back
end and then segmentation of the data uh
after the fact. Uh next slide please.
A little more in terms of the
methodology. This was a phone and online
survey. Phone meaning landline. Yes,
there are still a few people who have
those and answer them. Uh, but the
majority of the phone was via cell. Uh,
the online were text invitations and
email invitations. Uh, but we really
live in a cell and text world. So,
that's where the majority of our
completed interviews come from. The
universe that we looked at was likely
November 2026 voters in the district. We
were in the field at the very end of
May. Uh the average phone survey, which
is still our metric for measuring the
length, uh was 25 minutes. Our sample
size goal was 500. We actually got 505,
which leads us to a margin of error of
plus or minus 4.33%
for the entire sample. And for those
ballot question split samples, uh it's
plus or minus 6.14.
Next slide, please. And then the next
one after that.
So the first section again is the
perception of the district. Uh and the
first question there is the perception
of quality of education. If you add the
very and um somewhat favorables together
here, uh you see we're at basically 61%
in round numbers in this survey in the
pie chart. Uh if you look at the box at
the lower portion of the slide, you'll
see the same question from previous
surveys. is in the survey we did in May
of 2024 uh it was 45%
uh in February of 2022 it was 53%
rounded and in uh February of 2019 it
was 32%. So uh this is the highest that
it has been and that's certainly a good
indication and uh an indication of good
work by the district. Next slide please.
Uh the next slide is the management of
taxpayer or public funds. Same idea here
adding the vary and somewhat favorables
together. You see we're at uh 48%. This
is always lower than the quality of
education because it's a little bit
different. Uh and a lot of people don't
actually know uh what you're up to
because they don't follow board
meetings. And that's reflected in the uh
the DKNA, which is don't know no answer.
That's 27% that don't have an opinion.
uh when we add the vary and summits
together again it's 48% in this survey
it was 34 37 and 27 respectively in that
box at the bottom of the slide. So it
has improved here as well and that's
certainly a good thing as we contemplate
a revenue measure. Next slide. Uh the
next slide was an agree disagree uh with
a statement that the district needs
additional funding to provide quality
education. Uh again adding the strongly
and somewhat together we're at 64%
uh in round numbers. In May of 24 that
was 58 in February of 22 that was 61. Um
so again it's the highest that it has
been um over these last few surveys.
So, uh, next slide, please. And this is
where we switch gears in the survey.
We're sort of done with this perception
of the district at a high level, and we
go to specific parcel tax proposals. You
see the wording of the question in the
box on the right hand side. It meets all
of the statewide legal requirements uh
for a ballot measure. It's not more than
75 words. Uh, it has a tax rate which is
$17.5 per building square foot and $25
per unimproved parcel. It raises a total
of 14.3 million annually. Uh, and it has
a term which in this case is until ended
by voters. There's some other things
like independent citizens oversight
senior citizen exemptions, no money for
administrators,
uh, which are common for most parcel
taxes for school districts. It also
starts with those bullets that you see
which are the things that we believed at
this stage of the process would be the
best uh items for the parcel tax. So you
can see the bullets and preserving
science and technology, math, etc. Uh
when we ask people would they definitely
vote yes, probably vote yes, etc. Adding
the definitely and probably yes
together, you see we're at 63.4%.
That's a good place to start. Obviously,
it's not yet at the 2thirds threshold
necessary for a parcel tax to um be
successful. Uh but it is certainly a
good place to start. Next slide, please.
Uh the next slide, as I mentioned, we
did a split sample, which basically
means we have a random sample of 505 and
then we have two random samples within
that. Uh both of the random samples are
weighted and stratified independently to
make sure they're individually
representative and then they're added
together to make sure the entire survey
is representative.
This is a variation on the same parcel
tax um with the exception of the rate.
In this case, the rate is 5.5
uh $25 per unimproved parcel raising um
$4.5 million annually. So obviously it's
a lower uh a lower rate. Uh but that
didn't really change the data. In fact,
it's a little bit lower at 60% in round
numbers. So 3 and a half 4% lower.
Statistically speaking, there's no
difference between the two. Um so that
sort of suggests that the higher rate
may actually work a little better. But
again, statistically speaking, the two
variations are the same.
Uh next slide, please.
Uh the next set of questions was longer
because we're not limited to the 75
words of a ballot question. And this was
asked of the entire sample. Uh these
items were presented in a random order
to present any position bias. Uh and
after we're done with the interviewing,
we go back and assign numeric values to
each of the response categories. So a
much more likely gets a two, a somewhat
more likely gets a one, somewhat less
likely a minus one, much less likely a
minus2. And that creates what you see
the numbers next to the red bars. Uh
it's an intensity scale. And we do that
because uh there's four different
response categories plus a don't know
response. And it's hard to encapsulate
that in one percentage. Uh, and if you
did, uh, for example, add the much more
likely and somewhat more likely together
for the ranking purposes, you could have
an item that is 40% much more likely and
20% somewhat more likely, which is 60%.
Of course, you could have the reverse.
It could be 20% much more likely and 40%
somewhat more likely, still 60%, but not
the same 60%. The first example is much
stronger and a higher intensity. So
that's why we use this intensity score
to rank the items albeit it is somewhat
abstract. Uh so we also do in fact add
the much more likely and somewhat more
likely together and that's reflected in
the blue arrow and the range from high
to low on the right hand side of the
slide. Again it's ranked. These are
items are ranked by the intensity score
but we're displaying the percentages.
Makes it easier to understand what we're
looking at. Uh we also put things into
tiers and what that means is that within
a given tier uh the items are
statistically tied uh and that there is
no difference between them. Uh now there
is a numeric differences for sure and
and at the end of the day we've got to
put one thing in front of the other if
we're writing a ballot question or
ballot argument and so this is the best
order that we have. uh but realize that
within a tier everything uh are
technically tied.
So at the top of tier one we have
maintain hands-on science classes uh at
77% at least somewhat more likely to
support the measure. Attract and retain
qualified teachers and counselors is
next at virtually the same level.
Preserve science, technology,
engineering and math instruction.
Support quality reading and writing
programs. Provide math and science
enrichment. slightly different spin on
the math and science components that
we've tested previously on this list. Uh
maintain manageable class sizes, protect
uh arts and music programs, uh and then
maintain literacy programs. All of those
are above the 70% uh level, which is
three points higher than the two/irds
necessary uh to for this measure to be
successful. So that's a good list. The
other thing of note is this list
suggests that we might tweak the ballot
question a little bit in terms of the
bullets that we suggested uh initially.
Next slide please. And the next slide
continues the same list uh just further
down. Uh we start with maintain school
library programs at 70% uh but then
quickly we're going into the twothirds
level. So unlike the items on the first
slide, uh they're just not helping us
achieve or exceed the twothirds
threshold that we need to be successful
for a parcel tax. But you have things
like school library programs, uh updated
instructional materials, enhancing
school counseling programs, etc.
Next slide, please.
The next slide is another list. This one
is even a little bit longer. Again, it's
presented in random order and the idea
of is largely the same for creating the
intensity scale. This the response
categories are a little bit different,
but uh the idea is still the same ranked
by intensity, but then looking at the
percentage at least somewhat more likely
to vote yes. Uh at the top of this list,
we have every every penny from this
measure will benefit Redwood City
Elementary and Middle Schools. Uh the
measure ensures that large businesses
and large building owners pay their fair
share. That's a feature of a per square
foot parcel tax. Uh as opposed to what
the districts had in the past, which is
a flat rate parcel tax. Uh having a
great teacher in the classroom is the
most important element in providing
quality education. None of the money can
be taken by the US government or the
state of California. Always a good
accountability provision. Uh by law, no
money for this measure can be used for
administrator salaries, another
accountability provision. Uh the measure
will prevent additional layoffs of
dozens of qualified teachers and staff.
Uh every penny from this measure will
benefit Redwood City Elementary, middle,
and charter schools. Reason that this is
a little bit different than 7W, we just
wanted to see if the addition of the
charter schools made a difference. It
really doesn't. From a statistical
perspective, it is numerically lower,
but it's still in the low 70s, and
that's a good place to be. Uh, the
measure continues funding for critical
basic programs, including math, science,
reading, and writing. Another spin on
the uh the core academics. The good news
here is all of these are above that
72.7%.
Statistically, they're all tied. Again,
the rankings are are useful for our
purposes. Uh but this is all exceeds the
2/3 threshold by basically six points in
round numbers. Uh and so that's
certainly a good place to be. It gives
us arguments uh to work with. Next slide
please.
The next slide shows uh the continuation
of this list of questions. Uh you see
here quickly we're still in the 70s. Uh
you also see the reason we use the
intensity scale uh to rank them because
sometimes uh one of the items can have a
much higher somewhat more likely and as
a result the percentage seems higher
than the percentage for another one but
the intensity is how these are ranked
not just simply adding the much more and
somewhat more likely together. So these
two are all good. They're not quite as
good as the first slide but they're all
still in tier one. So statistically tied
uh many teachers are struggling with the
high cost of housing. Uh the measure
requires citizens oversight. Funds
raised by the measure cannot be impacted
by Doge. Uh the measure will help
provide competitive compensation for
teachers and school employees.
Uh given the rapid increasing cost of
living. Uh the measure uh if the measure
fails, the district will have to cut
programs for children across the
district. Given uncertainty surrounding
the US Department of Education, the
measure is critical to ensure children
cons continue to receive the best
education. Uh and finally, the school
district has award-winning teachers and
this measure will help retain them. Uh
again, all of these things are above
70%, so that's a good place to be. Next
slide, please.
Uh the next slide. Again, this was a
long list, but here you see now all of a
sudden we're the highest item here is
really just a little bit above the 2/3
threshold. So, this is not help these
items are not helping us get to the 2/3
uh that we need to be successful. So,
while they are positive and important
educational attributes, they're just not
um moving the voters.
So, at this point in the survey, we have
introduced the two measures to the
respective split samples. We've talked
about what they would fund. We've talked
about the positive side of the equation.
And we come to the retest of our ballot
questions. So, next slide, please.
So, the first one again is our 17.5 cent
uh parcel tax. Uh it started at 63.4,
we're now at 73.2. So, in round numbers,
a 10% increase. That's substantial. uh
and certainly a good uh a good sign for
this particular version. Uh next slide
please.
The 5.5 cent again starting at 59.5 has
moved up to 68. So almost a 10-point
gain, not quite as strong as the
previous one, but it didn't start as as
strong. Uh and so we have the same thing
going on here. there just seems to be um
more support for a larger measure which
will be more effective in meeting the
district's needs.
Next slide.
So the next set of questions is the
negatives. Obviously it's not just the
positive arguments in the context of a
measure being on the ballot. We need to
look at both sides of the coin and
that's what this does. The methodology
here is largely the same as
theformational statements. Uh, but you
have to remember that we don't put a
minus sign in front of the numbers to
make them seem bad. The higher they are,
the worse they are for us. And also,
it's important to remember that 33.4%
on election day is enough to defeat a
parcel tax that requires 2/3. So, the
bad news here is all of these are above
that 33.4%.
Uh, and there are some particularly
strong items at the top of the list. Uh
the measure does not have an expiration
date and will go on forever. We
characterized it um legally as until
ended by voters. The opposition calls it
a forever tax. Uh and that's 48% at
least somewhat more likely to vote no.
The measure would more than double the
current amount of the current school
parcel tax. Obviously rates are
important uh and a negative for us. uh
the residents and businesses struggling
with continued inflation, high gas
prices, and grocery prices. Uh now is
not the right time to do this. Uh the
city and county have increased sales
taxes, and the elementary, school, and
high school districts have as well. Uh
and that is a generic nod to the fact
that there may be a transportation
regional transportation measure on the
ballot at the same time. Uh and that's
obviously a negative. Uh the district
has enough taxpayer money already. They
just need to manage their budget more
efficiently. A pretty typical anti-ax
argument, but impactful. Uh given
economic uncertainty of tariffs,
inflation, high interest rates, state
budget cuts, and looming uh looming
deficits,
this is not the right time. Uh
obviously, that's to make sure that we
are baking into the final test uh the
economic uncertainty that we're facing.
Uh, salaries of school district
employees increase automatically based
on union contracts. Uh, don't be fooled,
the average homeowner will pay $100.
That's the 5.5 cent version of the
partial tax in split sample. Uh, and
then don't be fooled, the average
homeowner will pay $315 a year. That's
the 17.5
uh version of the parcel tax. So, those
were split sampled as well, but the
responses are virtually identical. Um,
and it's the state's job to fund uh
education. It should not be placed on
the back of local property owners uh in
the bottom list, but again, still above
that 33.4%
threshold.
So, now we've introduced the measure.
We've talked about the well, we fund, we
talked about the um positive arguments,
we've retested it, we've talked about
the negatives. So we go to the next
slide and we retest the measures for yet
a third time. Uh and so this is right
after the negatives just like the middle
test was right after the positives. So
this is sort of worst case. The second
test is the best case. Uh and here we
started at 63, we went up to 73. Uh and
we're now down to 66.5,
which is basically right at the 2/3
threshold. Um but it didn't go down as
far as where we started. And so that's
really encouraging. The other way to
look at this because of the structure of
the survey is very intentional to see
what the high is and what the low is.
Averaging the second and third tests is
a good way to figure out what happens
after everybody hears the positives and
the negatives all mixed together. Uh and
so when you do that where the average is
70% in round numbers, which obviously is
three points above the 2/3 threshold. So
that's a good place to be. The follow-up
question here for this split, next slide
please,
was support for a 10 cent uh per square
foot. So it basically is instead of 17.5
to do the same list of things, what if
it was 10 cents per building square
foot? And you see we get a little bit of
a bump from 66.5 to 67.6.
It's not statistically significant.
What's interesting and almost always the
case is the definitely yes has gone up.
So while there isn't a significant
difference in the total the intensity
has improved as one might expect uh at a
lower rate but because our average of
the second and third tests for 17.5
cents is 70%.
I'm not certain that going lower
benefits our likelihood of passage. Uh
it just reduces the revenue.
Uh, next slide please. So, going back to
the other side of the split sample
scenario. This is the 5.5 cent uh
version. We started at 60%, we went up
to 68, and we're now at 63 in round
numbers. So, as we've seen all along
with this version, it's just not getting
to the 2/3 threshold with any sort of
cushion. Uh, and even if we average the
second and third tests here, we're just
at 66%. So we're just below the 2/3
threshold for this. So I think that
suggests that the 17.5 is probably the
right way to go for planning purposes at
this point and that we don't have to go
uh to the lower rate.
Next slide please.
So the next slide was asked of
everybody. It's no longer split sampled
and this was instead of intend until
ended by voters the way we wrote both of
the ballot questions. What if it was
just eight years? So, we're looking for
a point where we might be able to do a
fixed parcel tax, which would eliminate
that um negative uh of of the forever
tax. Uh here we get 65%. It's not quite
as good as where we were with the until
ended by voters. That is almost always
the case. uh because until ended by
voters uh does um give people uh
awareness that you know they could go
out and and repeal attacks at any time.
Uh 8 years makes it sound like it's set
in stone. It's still pretty good. Uh
this is the entire sample. So uh it's a
little higher for the 17.5 just because
support for that is higher uh and a
little lower for the um the 5.5.
Next slide please.
And so this is the final slide in the
survey before I turn it back to Jeremy.
Uh but this is what I was alluding to
earlier that we had a question on uh
their opinion of the future economy. So
we're asking them what they think the
economy is going to be like next fall uh
in 2026 when we might be on the ballot.
uh and 17% said better, 30% said about
the same and 46%
said worse. So the bad news is people
are very pessimistic. If we compare that
with May of 24, worse was only 26%.
Uh so um the current economic climate is
of concern. That's the bad news. The
good news is this is baked into the
ballot questions that we've already
looked at. So despite people being
fairly pessimistic about their economic
future, they are still willing to
support a local partial tax as we just
saw a moment ago. Um so that's
encouraging. Uh but this bears watching
um to see if it gets worse than it
already is. Um which is as bad. We
didn't test it in the Redwood City
School District, but we've tested this
question uh since the beginning of the
pandemic in a whole variety of places.
and the worst responses right now are as
bad or worse than at the very beginning
of the pandemic. Um, so people are very
pessimistic, but again, that's baked
into the positive responses we got to
the 17.5% parcel tax. So that's uh the
survey presentation. I will turn it back
to Jeremy for his concluding remarks.
>> Thank you, Brian. Um, just wanted to
give a few recommendations based on this
research and our experience.
>> I think overall these are really
positive numbers and especially when you
compare them to the polling that was
done a little over a year ago, we're
seeing some good trends for your
district and we're seeing support for a
square footage parcel tax. Um, so we
recommend that you continue the process
of moving forward towards potentially
placing a measure on the ballot in the
future. We have some thoughts about how
to structure that measure and and when
to consider it. Um, first and foremost,
we recommend pursuing at the full 17 1.5
cents per square foot. Um, the polling
showed that there was not a difference
between that rate and the lower rate and
actually showed a little bit of
depressed support for that lower 5 1/2
cent rate. Um, our goal here primarily
is to bring as much revenue back to your
schools as possible and the 17.5 cent
per square foot measure would do that.
Um second, we recommend that you
consider the inclusion of a cap on the
rate. Uh in the measure that we tested,
in both measures that we tested, we did
not include a cap, meaning um that we
could put a limit on the amount that any
one parcel could pay, right? We're not
saying you should include one
necessarily, but we're really
recommending that you do community
outreach and engagement, particularly
with the business community, to
understand their appetite for this.
oftentimes local businesses, you know,
not registered to vote in the district
and thus can't take the poll, but still
should be an important stakeholder in
the process. And we recommend that over
the next few months as you're, you know,
workshopping this proposal, that be a
really important part of the discussion.
And then finally, we really strongly
recommend that you consider including a
sunset. Um, as Brian alluded to, that
was the number one argument against this
potential measure was the fact that it
did not include a sunset. And while your
pull results are very strong, I think we
need to recognize the fact that getting
to twothirds is really hard no matter
what, uh, and you're making a a pretty
big ask of your community at the 17 1.5
cent rate. We think a nice, uh, olive
branch would be to include a sunset, um,
and take that number one vulnerability
off the table. Right? After negatives,
we did see both measures drop, right?
And if we took that number one negative
argument off the t table, i.e., it did
not expire. Uh we think that would
certainly build a stronger proposal for
you all.
Second, we're recommending that you
target the June election. And we're
recommending that for a few reasons.
Primarily, if you're successful in June,
you'll be able to realize the increased
revenue from a measure on July 1 of
2026.
Uh if you wait until November of next
year, you can't start collecting that
additional revenue until July 1 of 2027.
Dr. Dr. Baker alluded to the fact that
you've made some painful cuts and have
to continue looking at painful cuts. So,
it seems as if time is of the essence.
You've got momentum and strong poll
results that say um you have support.
We'd recommend that you move forward uh
targeting that June election. We also do
know that there are likely to be
multiple ballot, multiple measures on
the ballot countywide next year, likely
in November. Um it'd be nice to to get
in ahead of those and and have less
competition uh for voter time and
attention. And then finally, we strongly
recommend that you take some time to
educate your community um both to voters
at large, but also uh key stakeholders
like business, PTAs, teachers, etc. um
to really express the need. Um I think
that was really clear in the polling as
we saw the the rise in support from the
first ballot question to the second
ballot question of nearly 10 points that
there is some connecting of the dots to
do for your community. uh and doing the
education on the front end before you
place the measure on the ballot would be
very beneficial for your measure. Uh
next slide, please.
And then finally, I just wanted to
remind us of the big picture timeline
and milestones. Um we've talked about
this a few different times now. Um we've
now completed the feasibility phase,
that first phase of this process. Um,
we've delivered poll results that we
feel really confident about and think
that we have a really a roadmap forward
here to move into steps two and three.
Um, you know, with your direction, we'd
like to start on that awareness building
phase where we begin to communicate uh
with your community about the the needs,
how a parcel tax might address those
needs, uh, and also really seek their
input, you know, both on a broadcale
basis through broad-based communication,
but also through more targeted
stakeholder meetings again. So you can
give them a little bit more information,
but you can also hear from them in a
nuanced way and start to refine, you
know, what your parcel tax might look
like next year. Um, after we're done
with that awareness building phase, we'd
move into the third and final phase of
the public side process, the actual
development of the measure itself. Um,
we would need in order to qualify for
the June ballot to bring back a
resolution to you all that you would
need to adopt before March 6th in order
to qualify for that ballot. In that
resolution, we would have a full uh
75word ballot question. We'd have a
final tax rate. We'd have a term whether
that include a sunset or not. Uh and
then we'd have to make a final decision
on including that rate cap. Um so, you
know, we we really are recommending that
we move forward in earnest so that we
can complete these next two steps and
bring back a resolution to you all for
consideration before that March 6th
deadline. Uh and then at that point,
there would be a passing of the baton.
And I think as you all know the district
cannot advocate for against the passage
of a measure. Uh so that work that
traditional campaign work that you've
seen for many years with you know lawn
signs of the community and volunteers
knocking on doors and raising money all
that must be privately coordinated and
fundraised. Um but still is a really
important part of this process
especially when you consider the the
twothirds threshold needed for support.
Um, so with that, uh, I think either
Brian or I are happy to answer any
questions that you might have about the
the numbers, the process, or next steps.
All
>> right. Thank you, Jeremy and Brian, for
the presentation. Um, we'll come right
back to your questions. I'm going to
take our public speaker comments first.
Um, and I'll take the one in person.
It's Jessica Shade.
And then as a reminder, uh, you'll have
three minutes. The you can see the timer
on the screen because it's on the front
of the podium.
All right. Thanks. Um, my name's Jessica
Shade. I'm a parent in the district. I'm
really encouraged that the polls showed
an increase in support um, from, you
know, when the last time you pulled back
in May of 2024.
Um, I also think that the square foot
parcel tax is a lot more equitable than
the flat rate that we've had in the
past. So, two really encouraging things.
Um, parents are really supportive of a
parcel tax. There's a lot of interest in
carrying this forward. Um, and we really
want to make sure that the funding would
go to the areas most needed by our kids.
So, parents want to be involved and help
carry this through. Um, we already have
a group of parents that have been
looking into parcel tax options. We've
been exploring a citizens initiative.
Um, but this would be a lot more
straightforward given election laws and
different complexities. Um, one thing
that I want to point out is these
numbers are very close to that 23
bar that we need to hit to get this
passed. So, we're really going to need
all hands on deck helping with this. So,
it's um even though it's more
straightforward than a citizens
initiative, it's going to be a bigger
lift. So, just a reminder to myself and
other parents that really going to have
to um put all our weight into this. So,
thank you.
>> All right. Thank you, Jessica. And then
we have two uh two comments from online
um we'll take Carlo Ktolli first um from
signing up through the form.
and then Brandon Matthews will be after
him.
>> Hello everyone. Uh I hope you can hear
me.
>> We can hear you.
>> Thank you. Sorry I couldn't be there
tonight but uh um I'm Kabakali. I'm a
parent city. I was also involved with
with other parents in time to to raise
funding for our school district. So my
take here is that the poll is showing
that there's a good chance a parcel tax
would be well perceived and supported by
the voters here at the city. So my take
it's it's take the chance and let the
voters decide. Uh we have seen drastic
budget cuts for this school year. We
don't know what is going to happen for
at the state and federal level going
forward. Uh it is urgent for us to
secure more funding for our schools. If
we do nothing, let's say we don't put
this on the ballot, things will only get
worse. uh by not putting this on the
ballot uh we would be denying an
opportunity for our students, our
teachers and our voters without even
trying and uh I'm not sure we have other
options to be frank like we like more
funding is needed. Uh it's not coming
from the state and or the federal level
and uh hey we need to to do what we can
at the local level.
Thank you.
>> Thank you Carla. And our next uh speaker
is Brandon Matthews.
Hi, good evening. Can you hear me?
>> We can.
>> Great.
>> Uh, good evening. Uh, my name is Brandon
Matthews. I'm a parent in the district
and I'm also a homeowner in
unincorporated Sano County. Uh, I am a
member of Unidos, which is the parent
teacher organization at Adalante Selby
Spanish Immersion School. Uh I am
speaking up tonight in order to support
this measure uh wholeheartedly. I think
it is absolutely the right choice and it
is my impression that the community
supports it. Uh it is also supported uh
by the individual members of the PTO
that I have spoken with about this. Um
there is unanimous support for it
amongst the parents that I that I that I
work with on the PTO.
Uh I in particular appreciate the
equitability of this tax. Uh I'm
personally against any sort of a cap
because I appreciate the progressive
nature of this particular uh arrangement
for for the tax. Uh and I I I want to
just call that out as something that I
see as as beneficial. Um, Unidos in
particular, the the parent teacher
organization at Adalante Selby is being
called on uh more heavily this year to
help fund uh programs and benefits to
the students at our school. Uh, but to
be perfectly honest, we're quite limited
by uh the demographics of the of the of
the families that represent the Adalante
Selby community. uh and we we're doing
everything we can, but but being able to
uh share this cost in a progressive
equable equitable way across the
district, I think uh would be huge and I
I want to to give my fullthroated
support for it. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Brandon.
Okay, let's uh bring it back to the
school board of trustees. Um and does
anyone want to start with uh any
questions? Also, this is not an action
item. Um but we do want to give some
direction. Um if you recall the three
recommendations that were presented
towards the end of the slide deck um if
you could sort of share your opinion on
those recommendations as well uh and
where where you're thinking about that.
We'll try and collect sort of where we
want to take as the next steps from
here.
Who wants to jump in. All right. Thanks
Jen.
>> Thank you. Thank you Brandon. Um and
sorry give me a second.
Um, I just had a couple questions um,
just for just for my own information,
but of the sample size of 500, do we
know how many were homeowners that we
pulled or
maybe that's a
>> uh, yeah, we do know that. Uh, it's one
of the stratification points that we use
to make sure that the sample is
representative of the likely voters. Uh,
and actually, I've got that right in
front of me. The way it's broken down in
the sample is 57% are homeowners. Uh 25%
are renters, but unfortunately there's
also 17% that we don't know. We don't
have information on them. So we waited
to those three figures to make sure that
it's representative. That works because
if you were campaigning tomorrow uh and
you wanted to send a mailer to
homeowners, you would be limited to
what's on the voter file. Um, so that's
what we limit the sample to as well.
>> Got it. Thank you. And then my other
question, it was more just kind of a
comment um to the next steps. It sounds
like um we definitely want to finalize
the ballot wording. Are you guys going
to be using the previous polling
information that came through? Are we
going to continue kind of community
outreach and reforming a committee or
like what is that?
>> Yeah, I'm I'm happy to. um we would be
relying on the polling first and
foremost to inform that decision. I do
think as a part of the stakeholder
engagement and outreach process. We want
to hear from folks and I think in
particular we want to hear about
probably rate and duration. Um and we
would build all of those um points of
feedback into the final language that we
would present to you as a board. And we
could do that in a number of ways. we
could do a a first reading of a
resolution for information only that
would allow you all to give feedback on
the language and then we could bring
back a final resolution for adoption
before that March 6 deadline. Um if you
also wanted to have an ad hoc committee,
we could certainly work with that as
well. Um but we would be doing it in
coordination with your legal counsel
William Tunic from DWK um who we've
worked with on all of the square footage
parcel taxes in the Bay Area.
>> And then maybe this is more of a Dr.
Aker question. You mentioned that as
board me or as a school district, we
can't be pro or con or for the measure
once it's on the ballot. Is that
>> once they pass the resolution?
>> That's correct. And it actually is at no
point can district resources be used to
advocate.
>> Okay.
>> Today, tomorrow on election day. Now,
you as board members are elected
officials and you have first amendment
rights and um are citizens in this
community. Um and you're more than
welcome to share your opinions and and
feelings about the measure and be
involved in an eventual campaign on your
personal time. Uh, district staff can
also be involved in a campaign on their
personal time as long as they're off the
clock and not on district property or
using district resources like email
addresses, phones, printers, copers,
etc.
>> Got it. Thank you.
>> Other questions? Um, questions about
the, you know, polling or anything?
>> Yeah. So on the polling um I I I liked
what we were able to learn from that but
uh it felt like on like the negative
questions for instance we were seeing
how people were changed their
perceptions based on given specific
statements but what that doesn't measure
is the preconceptions that people
started with right um was there any kind
of free form field where people could
specify what reasons they would have for
not supporting such a thing do do we
have an understanding of the opposition
beyond just the deltas we measured in
the negative statements in the poll.
>> Uh we didn't ask any open-ended
questions in this survey. Uh those are
certainly valid questions for things
like focus groups more qualitative uh
analysis. Uh but we did not ask them
here largely because of time. It was
already uh really over the budget at the
25m minute level. Um so uh so no they're
not in there. Um, I think though that,
you know, whatever preconceptions
somebody might bring to the ballot are
in that first ballot question. Uh, the
second ballot question for each split is
what happens after we've done all of our
hard work to explain in a campaign to
explain what the measure is about. the
negatives um although limited uh are
also limited to the things we have seen
in Sonteo County over and over and over
again. Uh I mean it seems that the
Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association uh
goes back to the same well when they
write ballot arguments. Um so there
aren't really a whole list of new
reasons to oppose it, although
individuals may have their own reasons
for sure. So, speaking of classic
reasons, I know that a classic reason
that we've heard of opposing new taxes
is that the the elderly will get kicked
out of their homes. They won't be able
to afford these new taxes. And so, there
have been elderly exemptions baked in
>> exemptions. Yes, there is in this.
Right.
>> Got it. Thank you.
>> Other questions before we go to the
recommendations? Uh Cecilia,
>> um can you just talk again about what
the consideration of cap on rate um is?
>> I I'd be happy to. So we have a lot of
flexibility with how we structure this
parcel tax. That's an underlying square
footage rate. As currently structured,
there is no cap, which means you pay
17.5 cents per square foot on every
single square foot of your property. You
could also decide to put a cap on the
rate that any one parcel could pay. And
let's say that that rate is a cap of
$5,000. What that means is you pay 17.5
cents per square foot up until $5,000.
And if you had qualified for a higher
rate if the cap was not there, you would
not pay more. Right? So, in theory,
larger properties are still paying more
than smaller properties, but how much
more is limited to that $5,000 limit.
That cap can be any number that we
decide. The reason we don't test it in
the initial polling is because we've
seen pretty consistently that including
a cap in your measure actually lowers
voter support. The reason to do it would
not primarily be a voter support reason.
It would be a business support reason.
Um, and it's why we recommend doing, you
know, that stakeholder outreach to meet
with the chamber, you know, apartment
association and others to make sure
they're comfortable with the approach.
And the reason we're doing it um is what
we don't want to happen is to have a
property owner who decides that they
want to write a $50,000 check to a
campaign to oppose your measure rather
than pay a you know larger tax over an 8
10 14year or longer period. So that
really is what we're recommending doing.
Um, and while the district can't be
again involved in an a formal capacity
in the campaign process, you can still
take into consideration uh when you're
deciding to place a measure on the
ballot the likelihood of success. And I
think that um having organi organized
opposition is always the number one
driver uh of whether or not you're going
to be successful. And we think the most
likely source of organized opposition uh
would be from a larger property owner
that has the resources to campaign
against it. Um, so but currently we
don't we didn't include it in the
polling because we thought we should
give it a shot without it and really do
the work on the back end to understand
if it can be feasible. I believe that it
can be, but we still recommend doing our
homework over the next few months and
doing that outreach to understand uh if
it is. I will say that if you know in
the course of that outreach, we're
hearing pretty consistently that a cap
is needed to avoid organized opposition,
we would want to do probably a shorter
tracking poll to include ballot language
that that includes that cap so we can
understand how it impacts voter support
as well.
>> Yeah.
>> And I'm just going to tack on to your
comment about the tracking poll because
I saw that that wasn't actually in the
recommendations for it. So, is that
because other than if we change the
language significantly, you think these
results are durable through uh an
election in in June? Um I'm wondering
mostly just because of the the high
percent of worse outlook on the economy.
Do we think we would need a tracking
poll in January, February?
>> I I I would see that omission mainly as
an oversight and not as a
recommendation. Um I you know I think we
really as we're you know going through
this process over the next few months
we're going to want to be listening and
if we sense a change in the tides if the
economy changes drastically if again
we're getting the sense that we want to
include a cap we absolutely would
recommend doing tracking research. We
wouldn't recommend doing it until uh
early next year closer to that board
decision so we can give you as accurate
of data as possible. Um, but you know,
if we we move forward and we don't
really feel any headwinds and momentum
continues to build, I don't think it's
required that we would check back in
with polling before making the decision.
>> Okay, great. Thanks. Um, David Lee, I
don't know if you had any questions. If
you didn't, I'd actually love to hear
your thoughts on the recommend unless
did you have questions or
>> I don't have any questions. I just
>> Yeah, then if questions or do you want
to jump into your thoughts on the
recommendations?
>> Microphone.
>> Uh, I don't have any questions, but I
Dr. Did you want to add anything before
we
>> No, just the comments and I'll wait
until everybody
>> Okay. Um, so I don't have any questions.
Um, my general thinking just going
straight to the I guess the threep prong
recommendation piece is I'm I'm in favor
of moving forward with this. Um, I guess
the three prongs are so first uh just in
terms of what we've seen. Uh, I agree. I
think it I doesn't make sense not to go
with the 17 and a half as a starting
point. Um I I do I I think my thing my
thoughts echo the same as some of our
public speakers which is like we got to
do like we know that we have to raise
money. This is a path toward pursuing
it. If we don't we know that we're not
going to get it. So uh we should do
that. Uh I also generally I would prefer
not to have a cap on the rate or a
sunset um for some of the reasons that
were stated. That said I don't think any
there's nothing being concrete here,
right? So, it's a consideration which I
think is totally fair and I'm yeah we we
have to see what how the picture plays
out. Um to Trusty Weekly's point, if we
hear other things in conversations about
um potential critical points that we
haven't heard before, then like yeah, we
we should take all that in
consideration. So, I guess big prong
one, yes, I think we let's do it and
generally in accordance with the
recommendations. Same thing with the
June 2nd. I think that makes sense like
we should get going sooner rather than
later. Uh and then the last one is
educating reform obviously discussions.
I think uh I'm probably in a similar
position as what I think Tristan King
mentioned which is obviously no district
resources but given where I am position
wise like I'm happy in my individual
capacity to probably continue educating
and um advocating.
>> Great. Thanks uh Jen.
>> Yeah, I pretty much echo what um David
just mentioned. I'm definitely for the
June 2nd if we can get our ducks in
order, right? The sooner we can get the
funding, the better. Um I I don't have a
feeling about the cap and the sunset. I
looking at the data, it seemed like it
could go either way. Um so yeah, I think
we need to at least kind of keep that in
mind if that impacts kind of the numbers
that we see.
But yeah, I'm I'm for this.
>> Great. Uh Cecilia,
>> um same here. I support um the next
steps and um I do appreciate the
stronghold results. Um and then this
with the um consideration of the cap
rate um um I am happy with the outreach
um
and next steps that would take place to
um see if that would be something that
we want to consider.
>> Yeah. said that we need to get twothirds
and 66.5%
is about as close as you can get to 2/3.
So, we're right on that edge. So, we got
our we got our work cut out for us. Um I
think on a cap my brothers would be no.
On a sunset my brothers would be no. Um
I was fascinated that things were so
invariant on the exact amount on the
exact price both in terms of uh the
support but also uh just even on the
negative side that there was e equal
negative sentiment for both as well. So
I mean I I get curious about um how do
we pick the right number? We we picked
two numbers that seem to have equal
resistance and equal support. Um just is
there more to explore in the
configuration space that's there? Um, I
think we've got an awesome energized
parent community who's psyched to go and
find a way to support our schools. I
think people may not realize that parcel
taxes have a lot fewer restrictions than
school bond measures and allow us to pay
salaries that can pay staff and
teachers. And um, I think this is the
mechanism of action to make that happen.
So, I'm I'm in favor.
>> Yeah, I'd agree. The one-time funding
let us really do the the the right thing
in a crisis. And so stable local funding
is going to let us just keep doing the
right thing every day. Um you know
that's like a counselor on campus when a
child needs help, manageable class
sizes, protecting reading and math
interventions. Um maintaining arts and
STEM that going to keep kids engaged. Um
so yeah, I'm I'm definitely in favor
with going through with this. I thought
it was interesting how the the stability
of the numbers regard uh regardless of
the amount there. So I'm in favor of the
17.5. I do think that the consideration
of the cap for the um reasons that you
brought up Jeremy, it's something that
we should definitely look at and
consider. Same with the uh the um the
sunset. And I guess one of the other
negatives was the um you know, obviously
we can't change this about, you know,
that obviously the state should be
funding the schools more. Um I don't
think any of us disagree with that. You
know, I'm sure we'll we'll continue in
our roles to advocate Sacramento to be
able to fund it, but our kids really
they just can't wait on state
volatility. Um, and so local funding
really will give us the stability that
we need for revenue and the local
control that we're we're looking for to
be able to do this. So, yeah, I'm in
favor of the June 26 ballot. Um, I think
that that puts us into the next fiscal
year should it pass, which would be
outstanding. Um, and yeah, we'll make
those tactical choices.
>> Great.
Well, from hearing the results a few
months back and there was this a
committee of us that heard it. Uh I was
very uplifted to see the results
compared to last time. We need to go
move forward. We have got to move
forward. You have all read the memo and
the plan for us going out to the
community and talking about reductions
and so forth. That's starting, you know,
next month. So we need to get out there
and start this ball rolling and
definitely work very closely with the
parent groups uh that are have already
created the momentum uh last year to
move in another direction to find us
funding for the programs that we need to
make sure that our students are going to
be prepared and ready for as they move
forward in their uh educational career
with us and beyond. So, with that being
said, Jeremy, um I know uh Amy
Buckmaster and I have a meeting coming
up. I may call you before I go into that
meeting. Uh she already knows what about
what it's about. Amy Buckmaster is the
CEO and president of the Chamber of
Commerce for San Diego. So, she has a
head up of what we're going to talk
about, but um
I we need to go. We just need to start
and uh you and I will communicate to
start this ad hoc committee also and
then I can get board members involved in
that too and start meeting with
stakeholders, parents, community
members, seniors and so forth. And I
know has had a list of um different
entities that we had started meeting
with towards the end of last school year
where these were not educators. These
were seniors. These were members of um
the the city council and so forth that
we're meeting with. So, we need to start
those dialogues again. So, I'll be
giving you a a ping.
>> Looking forward to it.
>> Okay. Great. Thank you, Jeremy and Brian
again for the presentation tonight and
Jessica, Carlo, and Brandon for uh
engaging with your comments.
>> All right. Thank you. Yeah, let's move
on. Um, our next item is a discussion of
school assign. Wait, before we move on,
you got all the information for
direction that you needed from us,
right? Okay. Okay. Uh, moving on for
discussion of school assignments and
committee assignments for the board
members for this school year 2526. Um,
again, this is just a discussion. Uh, I
think next meeting we're going to have
action items or consent agenda to
approve it. So, we're just discussing
the assignments. Um, let's start with
school assignments because those went
through the normal rotation through the
um the list. Does anyone have questions,
comments, concerns about the school
assignments as drafted?
>> No. Okay, great. Um, and then
>> All right. I
>> Yeah, David, please.
>> I I did have a question uh more about
the non-school sites. Um and just so
there's a special ed CDC facilities
would like to get clarification on what
what um assignments to those non-school
site categories what that effectively
means
>> like in practice what how do we support
how do I how would I support facilities
for example
>> um I'll let you give your opinion Dr.
fair. I can give you mine.
>> So, in our meeting that we're going to
have tomorrow, I was going to go over
that with you. You had put a a question
on the um the doc. What we what we would
really like you to do when you're at the
facilities department is to go out and
meet the staff that that are there. You
go out, ask questions, listen to them.
Martin is the director of facilities and
make sure that you um meet with Martin
prior to uh ask him questions that you
may have and then he can give you the
go-ahad to walk with him, meet other
members that are working in the
facilities department, get a taste of
what they do, um any questions that they
may have for you. But we'll go through a
lot of this tomorrow at our meeting and
have a meeting with Jennifer and you. So
Jennifer can also
>> Yeah. And I'll just add two more things
to that. One is that it then also has a
direct board member. If they have a
question for the board, they could look
at it to say who they could go to. And
also it's not just limited to the as
with the school sites as well. Um it's
not just limited to any to that one
board member. Any board member can visit
the facilities, you know, and get to
know Martin better. Um and do that kind
of thing. Martin, but there's
transportation out there and we have the
grounds and then out there so forth.
>> Yeah,
>> perfect. Small bit, but I thought the
John Gil campus had been renamed. I just
saw the name of the school site as
Mandard immersion in Orion alternative
at the John Gill campus as the name of
the site, which seems like a very long
name for a school.
>> It should be just Orion.
>> Yeah, it should be.
>> I can update that. I think it's
referring because it used to be the
jung. So, I'll update that.
>> Yeah, good point.
>> Cool. Okay. And then moving on to the
committee assignments. Um, these are the
ones that we've already been on um for
the the past school year. I think
normally we talk about these at our
organization meeting um in December
>> current. That's true. But one of the
reasons why we took we did it in
December is we did organize new
>> new board members. You're right. Okay.
So, we're not having new board members.
>> Okay. So, let's uh yeah, let's go
through this. Um I guess the question
would be does anyone want to change
their current committee assignments?
David,
>> something that would be nice at some
point is to have a snapshot of like when
do what committees meet? Um like I don't
know that I've seen any such calendar
and like for instance I've been on the
Stanford University committee and and it
it hasn't
>> I need to talk to them because I I don't
I don't think that's happening anymore.
So,
>> right. Um and so like um I'm a I'm just
curious generally the the load. So when
looking at some of these like is it an
equal load? Am I sherking? Right. Uh
>> policy committee is is a big load.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. So I I think just having some some
sense of like how big a responsibility
is being on this committee. Uh when does
it meet? Do we have a calendar of when
all the committees meet? And if there's
something that's under index like oh by
the way the Stanford University
committee hasn't met in the last year
two years um then we either should
disband it or find a way to actually
have those meetings happen
>> right it's like the two by two by two we
do not run those meetings so we depend
we're dependent upon the city and Evelyn
how many holes do I have in my calendar
that no one's gotten back to yet and I
know David asked me when's the next
meeting it's like we keep pushing back
you
Maybe the easier ask is like if it's
hard to look at the future, maybe we can
look in the rearview mirror like for the
last 12 months like you know how many
meetings have we had.
>> I don't know something like that.
>> Um sorry I think I missed this the
during the initial discussion it if
assuming that we there are no changes to
this. When would be the next time to go
over this again?
>> It would be the next
>> next um school year that we would do
this all over again.
>> Okay. So we'd be we would be here for
we'd be in these committees for
basically a year and a half. The the
half year that we've already done and
then one more year
>> after. Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Um the only thing that I would maybe
consider and this is not being selfish
uh is on the policy committee. I think
it would be helpful just for like to do
a rotation among board members because I
think it's super important and good
exposure um just to like see how it
works and to um to go through the
process. I think it's super important.
Um, that said, I'm happy to to stay on,
but I just wanted to put that out there.
>> So, you're willing to stay on? You're
willing to stay on for the for this
school year, for the remainder of this
school year. For the school year, I
should say.
>> Asking for visitor visitor committee
visitors if they're not.
>> Well, I was just I think if there is
interest, I I mean, I could step down if
Jen wants to stay. Um, or if Jen wants
to switch somewhere else, like I could
also stay on because I do think that
there's it's probably helpful to have
stability among some membership, but
just to get some sort of rotation going
would might be helpful.
>> Yeah. And I I I I'm not trying to sherk
joining the policy committee because I
actually think it would be a fascinating
one. I think with the momentum that's
been going on, it would actually be
helpful to have the stability um through
the school year and that when we do this
next year though, I I I do agree the
policy is probably a good one to have um
board members rotate through. Uh Wendy,
Wendy, I'd love your opinion.
>> Sorry to interrupt. Um this particular
year we are working with Gamut um and
and just today I got a note for March
having an intense time period for that
workshop series which is the overhaul of
the board policies and we are we've
expressed interest in having at least
one meeting a month possibly two as we
progress forward knowing that there's so
many to do and so I just wanted to point
that out there for everyone's work
schedules and so forth.
>> Yeah absolutely
>> and they're about an hour and a half uh
each meeting. Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, one of the more intense ones.
>> I'm I'm happy to remain and I I would
love to have Jen also remain for the
school year.
>> Yeah. No, I I'm I'm in it for this this
session. I think it just when we
reconvene next year, maybe we can rotate
it.
>> Right on. I agree. I think that's great.
>> Uh any other anything anything else to
discuss on the committees?
>> Okay, we'll see these.
>> I'm sure they actually happen. Yeah.
Yeah. We'll see what what dates I can
get for you.
>> Yeah. So, it sounded like we're looking
for like a oneliner of what it does and
how often it meet like what's the
workload kind of thing. Okay. Yeah, I
think that makes sense.
Um, all right. Great.
Okay. We're done with our discussion.
So, we're moving on to public hearing.
So, next on the agenda is our public
hearing for sufficiency of instructional
materials for the 2526 school year. Um,
just as a reminder, we've got two parts
to this one tonight. There's the public
hearing, which is this agenda item, and
it's just primarily about receiving
public input on this. Um, you know, by
all means, feel free to ask clarifying
questions um during the hearings, but
we'll we'll probably have a little
discussion if there's anything to
discuss right after it. Um, but I will
point out that later in the agenda in
14.4 is the um we'll be considering
taking action on a resolution to approve
this. Um probably though if there's
anything discussed we should just do it
now during this agenda item and then we
can just run through that um in 144. Uh
okay. So I'm going to now open the
public hearing on the sufficiency of
instructional materials for the 2526
school year at 8:11.
I don't think we have a presentation. So
we will jump right to
>> sorry review. I mean it's every year we
have to have this as we're getting
audited in the current process. So we
have to have this done. um it's our
yearly public hearing and determination
for and you guys have the list of all
the materials that um we have that this
for each site. So
>> great. Um we'll take I
no hands on Zoom, no speaker cards
submitted. Um so just one last call for
public comment.
Okay. Uh so hearing none, I'm going to
close the public hearing at 8:12.
Um and now that it's closed, uh do the
trustees have any comments or questions
regarding this item.
>> Everything looked good. Passes the snip
test.
>> It looks It looks sufficient. I did ask
one question about the science, which
was the science curriculum, which was uh
I think adopted by the district in like
2007208. New standards came around
somewhere in the teens. Um, and it has
been updated uh to reflect the NextG
science standards. So, that was great to
hear. I think I knew that too, but I
just wanted to double check it. Um,
okay, great. Michael,
>> sorry. One question. I know when we're
adopting new curriculum, there's samples
for the public and parents to look at.
Is that available or existing or like
something that's
>> um I mean they're all at school sites.
So, usually back to school and it's
usually people the teacher.
Thank you. Um, usually like at back to
school night, teachers will usually go
over whatever they're going to be
covering and sometimes they're available
then.
>> Um, we don't have I mean they're all
available at the school sites if any
parent are interested in seeing the
curriculum
>> or if there's something that is not at
the school site. We may have it at the
instructional material center where one
can go and view it. We just need to get
make sure that you make an appointment
with Carla so Carla can be there to help
you with what you want to view.
Okay. Well, thank you for the prep. Um,
you know, I I know I know it feels like
a checkbox, but it's really, you know,
it's a more than that, right? It's a
promise to our families and our students
that they're going to have what they
need on the first day and like
curriculum so key to our LCAP goals,
right? We're not going to see growth in
reading and math or LPAC without, you
know, high quality materials at school.
So, thanks again. Um, all right, let's
move on to our Let's see. I think are we
Are we at the consent agenda? Yes. Okay.
So, we're at the consent agenda. Um, we
are going to pass all of these items in
one motion. Uh, and this was a lengthy
one. So, can I get a motion to approve
the consent agenda?
>> I move we approve the consent agenda.
>> I second.
>> All right. All in favor?
>> I.
>> I. Perfect. Then we can move on to the
action items. Um now many of these feel
like they are just kind of proforma kind
of uh things but they are action items
because they're resolutions and we
always have to vote on resolutions. Um
so we will start with the first one
which is the approval of theou for
connect community charter school uh
which we had a big presentation on
earlier in last school year. Um Rick is
this you can
>> just say a couple sentences. Uh good
evening members of the board uh and
community. Uh tonight Redwood City uh
school district and connect community
charter schools seek approval of a newou
aligned to the renewal of the charter
school's authorization I believe
happened in March. Uh theou establishes
uh clear expectations and
responsibilities between excuse me the
district and the charter school ensuring
compliance with uh applicable state and
federal requirements. It also outlines
processes for governance, academic
accountability, fiscal oversight, and
operations while supporting a
collaborative relationship that benefits
students and families. Uh, so with that,
I'll hand it back over to
>> All right. Does anyone have comments or
questions?
Seems pretty straightforward. Can I get
a motion to approve?
>> I move we approve.
>> Second.
>> A second.
>> Okay. All in favor?
>> I.
>> I. Great. Moving on to our second um
action item. This is adoption of
resolution number one. And these are
teachers gaining permanent status.
Indeed,
>> it is such a joyous occasion to bring
this list to you. Um these teachers
identified on the attached list have met
all of the requirements to gain tenure
which typically um is uh eligible on the
first day of the third year of teaching.
Uh so they are the school sites are not
listed purposely because these are
members of our school district, not
necessarily associated to a particular
site. But if you're interested in in
those sites, I can send that separate
list to you. So, we are seeking um
approval for the resolution for teachers
gaining tenure to the Redwood City
School District tonight.
>> All right. Thank you, Wendy. And
congratulations to the teachers and the
speech therapists that are gaining
tenure. Um does anyone have questions or
comments?
Outstanding. Can we get a motion to
approve?
>> I mo move we adopt resolution number
one.
>> All right. And a second. I second.
>> Uh all in favor?
>> I congratulations teachers.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Uh we don't stop with
resolution number one. So we'll move on
to resolution number two. Um and that's
approval of education code and title
five options for teaching assignments.
Wendy, this is you again.
>> Yes. In order for uh administrators and
teachers to have flexible schedules for
students uh from time to time, we do
like to take advantage of the uh
opportunities of waiverss that are
available. So we have fully credentialed
teachers that might be teaching an
elective or one subject perhaps outside
their credential. And these allocations
are uh appropriate through the
California Teaching Commission. So
tonight's list is the next batch that I
uh mentioned that may come in June.
They're now arriving and I actually will
have one more next week for Northstar's
enrichment courses uh because they mixed
students fourth through 8th grade. So
that's a really unique experience. Um,
and so this particular resolution
tonight, uh, includes the items that we
learned about or any changes in
schedules since the June board meeting
and new hires over the summer that need
these, uh, waiverss to continue in the
schedules that the principles created.
>> All right. Excellent. Um, any questions,
comments?
All right. And as always, we thank the
teachers for their um, you know,
flexibility to work outside their
credential and be able to expand the
offerings that are, you know, and the
support that our district is offering.
Um, can I get a motion to approve
resolution number two?
>> I move that we adopt resolution number
two.
>> Seconded.
>> All right. Perfect. All in favor?
>> I.
>> I. All right. Moving on to resolution
number three. Uh, this is the one from
the public hearing. This is sufficiency
of instructional materials for the 2526
school year.
>> Yeah. So we're just asking the adoption
of the resolution number three to that
we have sufficient textbooks and
instructional materials for all our
peans um so that they have access to
curriculum.
>> Yeah, we had the vigorous discussion
earlier on this. U so if anyone has
questions or comments by all means bring
them up now. Otherwise I'll take a
motion to approve.
>> I move we adopt resolution number three
>> and a second.
>> Second.
>> All in favor?
>> I
>> I. They're sufficient. Yes, we are done
with the resolutions, but we are still
uh here to approve the provisional
internship permit. Wendy,
>> thank you. So, the state of California
does offer emergency credential options
for individuals that have a specific
degree in an area that uh is acceptable
in this case for a multiple subject or
single subject credential. So these
individuals will begin a credential
program into the future but have
sufficient content knowledge uh to do
this work and they also are assigned a
mentor. We have a whole mentorship
program that we've had for many years in
place to support all of our teachers
that don't yet have their full
credentials. So these two individuals
are um hires over the summer uh that are
brought to you tonight.
So it it must be an action item. Okay.
Absolutely. Um, does anyone have
questions or comments?
I know I didn't have any concerns. They
both they both sounded qualified. Uh, so
is there a motion to approve?
>> I'll make a motion.
>> And a second.
>> Second.
>> All in favor? I. All right. Moving on.
Uh, board and superintendent reports.
Guess this goes for the whole summer
maybe, but
yeah.
I didn't think that far back. Uh but the
one thing to report was yesterday there
was the uh San Mato County Schoolboard
Association meeting, the first general
meeting for the year. Uh that was very
helpful. Talked about uh met with the
other trustees across the county which
is always helpful. Uh talked about
potential programming which hopefully
will contain a bunch of things that'll
be interesting to all of us as well as
others around the county. Uh then
importantly was um it sounds like there
was some interest in developing a ledge
policy committee kind of to our point
earlier about the ways that we can
advocate for um funding and our students
in general uh but through a more
collective body. So it sounds like that
might be something uh that could kick
up. Um so you guys post to there's
there's more there.
I don't have nothing to report, but I do
have something to say. And I just want
to say um thank you to I assume Evelyn
and all those behind working behind the
scenes to give us this smooth transition
to Gamut cuz for those people that don't
know, we just switched and it doesn't
even seem like we switched. So I want to
say I appreciate that because I know
what happens behind the scenes. So thank
you so much for all your work.
>> I don't see it.
>> Yeah. No, thank thank you for calling
that out because yeah, it really was
smooth. I mean, you're right. It just
kind of like naturally fell in place.
So, thanks.
>> I'm glad it was an easy transition. I
will say Rick is behind the scenes as
well. So, Rick and Olivia have been
Yeah,
>> there's some you don't see.
>> Yeah.
>> No, that's good. Thank you. All right,
David. Nothing to report. Yeah, I don't
have anything to report either, Dr.
Baker. No, just that we had a great
welcome back and David Lee was there
when we had that welcome back for uh our
teachers and our staff and then the
schools opened up and cabinet members.
We were all assigned to different
schools and had a great time for the
first first day watching kids and
teachers and staff members and schools
with the kids. No running after a a
little guy this year for me. So that was
that was great. Although Jen did have
one in the that she had to walk to the
classroom uh and well I well I sat and
met with the parent. So but it was good
opening. Very good opening.
>> That's good to hear. I'm so sorry I
missed the welcome back uh event this
year. I really enjoyed it last year. So
next year I'll be sure to be there. Um
okay, let's move on to the information
items. There's two here. Does anyone
have questions or comments or any more
information that they need about it?
Looks like none. Okay. Um
correspondence. Um, I know we got
several emails um to the full board. I
think the one that maybe is worth
reporting out was just this the Prop 2
application notification from KIP. I'm
sure that that's going through the
process there. Um, any other
correspondence that um we want to report
on?
>> I did get correspondence about just the
process and timing for applicants for
the citizens bond oversight committee
and that was resolved by staff.
>> Sounds good. Uh let's talk about the
next item which is uh other business and
suggested items for future agenda.
>> I would love to make sure that we have
carved out some time to go and discuss
how to stack rank our parking lot items
just to make sure that we have time in
future board meetings to go and dive
into BD topics. Um so I'm trying to
figure out how we can set aside time to
decide what we're going to discuss when.
>> Yeah, we will. Okay, let's put that on
to the figure out how to get that on.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah,
>> because that is a suggested items for a
future agenda.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Get the topic
scheduled.
>> Cool. Thank you.
>> Um I will point out that there are
several media items that we are already
covering this year including no doubt
the Yeah. everything that we already
have there.
>> Um okay. Uh any anything else? No. Uh
how about the meeting? of
>> um so talk about future um agenda items
and
the board policy committee. I know that
I had brought up way back before the
school year was over regarding one of
the board policies and I forget the
number and it was the rate into which
people get reimbursed for attending a
conference. So that was one of the
things that I know you guys had said you
guys were probably going to bring it
back and I know the year starting and so
just
you guys can figure out when you guys
want to bring it but just wanted to make
sure that what that was
>> that's the rate for reimbursement when
you attend the conference is that
>> yes I forget what number that is. I mean
I can I can look it up and get to
>> we meet once 30th so we can add that to
our list.
Great. Um,
meeting calendar. Any questions,
comments on the meeting calendar? I
think our next meeting is next
Wednesday.
So, be right back. Okay. Um, we're up to
adjournment, which is an action item.
>> I move we wrap it. And is there a
second?
>> Second.
>> That was Cecilia. Yeah, I heard. Okay,
great. All in favor? I I All right.
Thank you and welcome back to school,
everyone.