January-28-2019-Work-Session-Segment-2
[00:00:00] And when you brought that up, I tend to kind of agree with you this or S. Law is new to us.  yet where a district that has had a long-range plan with the companion CIP with it for years and. Together they tell the whole so I do have confidence that together. They do tell the whole story. So maybe it's a function of us.
There might be a couple different solutions one might be to add more narrative to our long-range plan. Yeah, it is suggesting things that our board hasn't had time to really answer.  And at the same time as we go [00:01:00] through the CIP and especially if a board would choose to have a bond to respond to those things.
It would be included in the CIP. It makes me wonder under the new law. If perhaps the adoption of the long-range plan, which in our minds is one that sets up the discussion the parameters.  and the possibilities of our District's future the CIP provides some very specific responses to that future and would it be conceivable that if.
Aboard continues forward with this process. We get to the point of a board making a resolution to put something on a ballot that then the CIP by itself is updated adopted and attached to the long-range plan for the future to [00:02:00] stand as the record that seems from where we sit today like a reasonable thing to do because they truly are companion.
But we're very intentional in not trying to predict things in the long-range plan itself allowing time for a board to consider how they're going to respond to it.  Does that make sense as an option? I think that that makes complete sense and I can appreciate why as we sit here today. We are not currently attaching the CIP because our CIP kind of gets whittled down and becomes more finite but that's not due to board action that is due to our public and our public response and they really guide us and tell us and help us prioritize.
You know what they deem necessary now as well as [00:03:00] they with regards to the financial plans like d they also have input on kind of the size of the or the scale of each project within the time frames that were talking about. So I it seems very reasonable to. Have the board consider adopting the lung pranked prion because then that allows for the foundation of us proceeding to vetting out the CIP and then when that process has taken place, it would stand to reason the board could adopt that as a companion to the long-range plan and it would then.
Better meet the wording of this and you statute and once you as a board decide the more immediate needs those things that didn't hit the list they certainly describe the tenure need and they would be on you know, within the plan as that, [00:04:00] you know, the next steps as we move through that next tenure section.
I. As I read this it's not a new law but. That's just the lawyer in me and I could be wrong but based on what we have before us. It's been in existence at least since 2007 in this form. So I would just I regret that I didn't have this and when you ask for direction to the long-range plan, we did I didn't say I need you to walk through this statute and the long-range plan needs to meet each of those in.
Retrospect that's a discussion. I would have wanted have with my board member in providing a Direction. So I want to own that that I should have done. I feel like we should have done that. But the question for me now is really how how [00:05:00] do we do that? I think connecting them later is certainly permissible as I read the statute that we could do.
I do think that what I feel I. There needs to be an identification and minimal standards. We you know in a for our schools and what are those and how do we know when we're not meeting them and then have then our Capital Improvement plan is our response to that which I think is what the legislature intended with the statute is our any thoughts from the long range planning committee about what I mean.
It's just. Make sense to you. Am I is it totally like you weren't thinking of it or you did and you think you it's in there and I missed it.
I think we should have considered it. Yeah.  I agree with you.
[00:06:00] I think this is a part one of what we have to submit or to to meet this so I don't see any problem with the school board adopting the long-range plan.  But then have a second adoption after you decide your Capital Improvement projects to have be adopting the long-range plan inclusive of the second portion.
And I think that would do the trick.
And do we currently have or how what would it look like to generate descriptions of physical improvements needed an existing Schools Financial plans to meet school facility needs including an analysis of available tools. An analysis of the Alternatives of new school construction and looks to me like the compilation of quite a bit of information and I'm just wondering to what degree do we know we have that or we would need to generate it.
And what [00:07:00] would that look like?  I think we know.  And I think it could be in narrative and table. I I don't have any question about that. I think its timing the one thing that we hope you can appreciate this from long range planning perspective and certainly staff that we have no intention and getting in front of a school board for the public and presuming in front of it is not a place we want to be and that's really why we've split them intentionally.
With adoption of a long-range plan. It provides agreement on all the things that are within it all the programs we have I think Rebecca has talked about and if and I think [00:08:00] it's woven into the lot of the narrative about improvements that can be responsive. I think CTU is a perfect example. Um makerspaces into the future, you know, those sorts of things that are projected and shown within the planet itself in the long range plan.
And then on the CIP side the physical improvements that respond to both program and then enrollment projections that we need to contemplate across across the district and again, I. I think there could be some argument made that a variety of these things that you do have questions on is in the long-range plan.
My question was is it there? Yeah when he's table talks about how many schools you need into the future .3 of a primary? That's a [00:09:00] prediction that response to that or a point to high school. And remember that those point to 0.30 based on the projected enrollment that we would prefer for a school. So .3 of a 550 student primary school is different than 0.2 of a 1800 student high school, but at that level it certainly is predicting that need into the future and I think there's some other.
Points here that you could point to it made me more generic supposedly where the CIP would get very specific and if we did couple them at the appropriate time, I think it would be exceedingly accurate to the law.
I wish I knew the ins and out of this document well enough to be able to find [00:10:00] yeah where perhaps we are meeting these requirements. It might not be spelled out as much as I would love to be spoon-fed this information. Like, you know 5re a is here and B is there you know when I think about for example.
The Alternatives in New School Construction.  We kind of explored that with the high school study group. I mean one idea was to build, you know, a huge high school traditional high school facility make it bigger, you know, and that was when I didn't the alternative was, you know, also explored to to move an existing space.
And so some of this work may have happened. It just isn't set out. So linearly literally it's embedded in the narrative, right? But I'm in but I can't I don't know it well enough to be able to draw the area. We did include some of those studies in the appendix of the CIP itself.  Wondering if there is a possibility that you can have like one page document [00:11:00] that kind of address.
This is a this is B. This is C where it is in the back and just a reference to this is what the law says and this is what we have. To be a way to kind of navigate the document business what's written in the law?  Maybe we already have a chance and I would even propose to I mean the one that's not the financial plans to meet the school facility needs and stuff.
I mean it is in there. There was a section I believe again. I'm like with you I bet it's a newer. But yeah, it talks about I thought a bond and a levee and how we have done that which that is your financial planning. For these items.  When we talk about school safety, I mean it lists out. You know, what we would like to see our world language programs that we we find necessary for our children you at list out things that we need to carry out those programs or that we value in those programs, which [00:12:00] meet you don't see it's not a finite list.
No, but I think there is. That information in there now. I also can appreciate gingers asked for a little bit maybe more that find detailed Financial but I would also say that if that's the case then you know, we can prove the long-range plan with the intent to then adopt the CIP because then it really does get a little bit more into specific building new additional building needs and.
Estimated costs in front of that the kind of the Roar the raw or S1 95.1 10. There is a section of the Keith helped put together that address is where the plan. Response to the law components and [00:13:00] it's fix expressive is right in front of so, there's the law itself that we were looking at just go backward a couple pages and there's a section on part 5 where we're talking right now and Keith is laid out the response to it, but in actually Rebecca, okay.
She can take. But you'll notice that in some cases it is the long-range plan that's responding and in some cases. It's the CIP that's responding. So that's where that blend happens and thus the conversation that we're having right here.
You might also a glance again at pages from the long-range plan starting on pages 62 that kind of encapsulate if you want wanted more.  [00:14:00] convinced.
I'm so so I think one of the complexities is that the state puts forward a statute, but then they don't give a template on how they want school districts to write long range plans. So if you've looked at other school districts, they vary in how they put them together with a lot of narrative less narrative how much history do they go into how deep are their long-range plans how thin they are but do they address those components?
So I think. With the memo that's that's here that shows the compliance methodology to that ORS and [00:15:00] because their reference both I can see that you're leaning towards, you know a way to make sure that we're all inclusive around addressing those elements in the ORS short of having a. Template that does almost what you said Sammy that would just be maybe like a four-page document that you know, we we've got a kind of a more comprehensive narrative document with descriptions than that that between the two we do fulfill these components of the ORS.
So I think as you're leaning towards let's then formally once we have the CIP that's been vetted by the community and we know what's going on the ballot. Write a version 2 of it. This is the version one that goes in front of community. The version 2 would be what we feel then is what we're going out and doing I think you're fine is a board in fulfilling the ORS.
I can't see where we wouldn't be.
I can certainly appreciate the delicate balance between generating the [00:16:00] analysis of our current situation in our projections and not going out ahead of the board or the community in generating a CIP, which the statute is sort of asking us perhaps to do but perhaps it might be that it's a process by which we then end up with the complete document but.
We're currently compliant. It's just not going to be doesn't going to not have a tidy bow on it tonight with all the information but by the end of the process it will.
Well, and I'd also say to just to point people to page 72 which does I mean essentially there's a list there that says go refer to our CIP and it will lay out like the. Ability to stabilize debt and consolidate projects it a systematic evaluation of all potential projects at the same time. I mean, it does [00:17:00] at least this document itself goes and refers you to what will then be our CIP so.
It's in there by reference yet Incorporated by reference. So here's the important distinction for me. The CIP As A Five-Year Plan and the statute says the school facility plan must cover a period of at least 10 years, which is 5 a and so my comment was that I don't think we've met that criteria in the long range plan, even if we incorporate the capital Improvement.
plan laid so. Is 10-year plan because we're showing enrollment out 10 years and in our tenure section. We have two scenarios one is the 10-year scenario and one is greater than 10 years. [00:18:00] I would argue that our long-range plan does contemplate a 10-year plan which was different for us because we've always done five year.
Is that shorter and it's based on us having the incremental bonds over time. This one did say 10 years and I made it crystal clear to our planners and County and City and others that it needed to contemplate 10 years and that's and it was different for flow analytics when they can came. They weren't really excited to do 10 years because it gets really difficult.
But that's what the law says. And that's what we required for us when we look at that tenure. We look at the five year because it's the closest and probably the most accurate in terms of true enrollment projections. And because we're overcapacity good high school and we're pushing it on the edge of other things are need for those [00:19:00] spaces are longer than 10 years out.
So we have to come back into the plan for into those enrollment projections and look when the need really is yet. You can see all 10 years. I was going to say. I think it's a fine thing to guess what Doris mentioned which is that the this is a first version second version is going to include the capital Improvement program as long as that encapsulates the 10 years but gingers point is well taken to which is that I'm not sure even with the inclusion that we meet all of the requirements of the law made.
For example, it says you have to mention alternatives to New School construction and discuss measures to increase efficient use of our schools. I don't remember seeing that here. Maybe I missed it. I didn't see those things in here. And so I like it. Amy said which is you know, just have a one-page cheat sheet showing.
You know, where are we doing? Each of these things and I think as long as the board is okay because we're going to make statements in that and it's the board's okay, and it's making [00:20:00] statements in a plan that they're going to adopt we could add that. I think the sit from my perspective the safest way is to let the board continue contemplating the CIP part.
Finding the solutions for it and then incorporating the two documents. That's my opinion. But now turn it around think it's mutually exclusive though, right? You can incorporate the two documents and have no dear state of Oregon. Here's how we meet each of these requirements.  I think you actually both are on the same page.
It's a matter of timing and I think what if correct me if I'm wrong. Mr. Woodley is like I'm happy to do that. But I would like to create that sheet after we've worked through and finalize the CIP versus doing it right now and appending it to this document. So I think I'd be reluctant and fish and stuff.
I don't know. I might get serious writers and clock right [00:21:00] about there. Well, and for me, I will just tell you it does bag. I mean, I understand your hesitancy here because we even had dr. Reynolds on the line again reiterating this idea that Meridian Creek was supposed to be a 700 plus school and that this misinformation is out there.
Although you know, as a board member know we had an entire work session where we discussed that Meridian Creek and it's planets build out and how big we were going to currently build it out and how big its footprint was and. You know, even though we had these discussions, you know, dr. Reynolds is saying, you know, she believes they're still misinformation out there so I can understand on the right.
I don't think that's what she's saying exactly that I can understand your hesitancy all the same because once you put it in writing there is that concerned that it could be Miss Groot construed or taken out of context. And I think what dr. Reynolds has said is that we need to be ready to respond to that if we hear [00:22:00] that and I think that was a valid question and then we have their response CIP preceded the bond language and the CIP the amount 40.
1.5 which pretty close to the 40 million that was included in the bond. So, you know, it was just a proximity in the CIP and the bond language that I think it might have been commonly understood to be a built out school, you know by the public not those who sat in work sessions. I do have a another comment 192 1 10 9.
Talks about the capacity criteria and I wondered about how the flow capacity determination I think it's on about page 42 how [00:23:00] that relates to the capacity formula that the board adopted in May and I think that was the square footage model.  Sometime as long as the statute. Requires identification of the criteria.
I'm wondering if there's a need to clarify that or if perhaps.  You think it's already there? It's clear already.
I mean of time. Okay, so related capacity that was a fairly lengthy study with our long range planning committee a review with the school board that adjusted how we would take a look at that.  We then took those comments. [00:24:00] Reviewed how neighboring districts districts do it and then some national standards around doing it.
And the reality is is that our architect dull so weeks Architects did it? It wasn't slow that created the capacities. They just created the enrollment projections. We provided the capacities through the work of of dawa.  and.
I believe we gave a fairly extensive discussion of that with the school board. I know we did it at length with our long range planning committee while some might.  suggests that square footage is easy. It isn't necessarily because of schedule especially at the secondary level because of high schools and the various size of classes for different.
Spaces gym a band room.  [00:25:00] Music Space a maker Space versus a classroom or even a small classroom or science lab. There's just a lot of detail and complexity to it yet at the end of the day we came up with square feet per student for each level. And there's a fairly descriptive narrative that is included as an appendix to the long-range plan that I believe does describe it with some Integrity that then created the numbers without anyone.
Interacting them with them whatsoever. They produce numbers that were different than the capacity calculations. We had done prior in 2013-14, but it wasn't based just on the the differences weren't based only [00:26:00] on.  Those existing facilities but on the facilities. That have been dramatically changed or added onto since that 2014 plan.
So if you look at that plan you look at a capacity for a school that school could have had classrooms added like Trillium Lowry could be a brand new school that we've never done it for West Linn High School different programs. We have inclusive practices. Now, we have preschools now all of those factors.
Came into the new calculations for the school capacities of all of our buildings and when I look at them and compare them to the existing I found them to be not only reasonable but did compare well within some range that you would end up probably being different. Anyway, I think of the [00:27:00] work that we've done and.
That work around determining the capacity of our schools. I think was very well done very well vetted talked about and I believe has strong integrity and we did discuss it. I don't know if you guys caught it or not, but we had a fairly lengthy all afternoon meeting with planners from. Both cities from the county from Washington County from Tualatin from Metro about all of these things and they their primary focus was on enrollment projections their view of growth opportunities within the ugv or the urban reserves the timing for it how our capacities.
Booked in comparison to our enrollment projections and it was a very deep [00:28:00] and thoughtful conversation with them too, and they came out in concurrence with kind of our view of how we're doing it.  So that that part when it comes to the capacities, I have great faith in what they're saying recognizing though.
It's a planning tool. Help us understand when the time comes for additional facilities in the in the school district. It's not a science that when you hit that number you're full because it's not exactly true when you have 500 classrooms. And you add one student per classroom. That's 500 kids more that you can really easily.
[00:29:00] 192 1 10 9 and it is it talks about the criteria that a school district relies upon for determining I think it's determining capacity. I think she means 195. I don't end it can't be 110 because it doesn't exist 25 110.
So my understanding of capacity in 195 1 10 9. Sorry, it's what I do want [00:30:00] n9a. I'm sorry. I have the wrong number.  Whether adequate capacity is to accommodate projected development. And finally that's criteria for the capacity and that's why I was asking about the criteria. We adopted last met and whether the compact, you know, what formula that was used to determine the capacity as indicated on page 42 and I think Tim basically said it was dealt with in in narrative form and I understand nine to be capacity in a totally different.
It's about whether the city of Wilson Chevelle should be able to continue to develop it the rate it is and our schools have capacity to.  adjust to that growth, which I think is a different question. Yeah, and we did review we did review [00:31:00] how we came to our capacity calculations. And they were accepting of it because we know that with in Clackamas County, for example, there are some use the teaching station model some use the square foot per student.
So they've accepted both they reviewed how we did it and both the city of Wilsonville and West Linn. We're perfectly happy with that capacity calculation that we could come up with. They didn't dig super deep into it, you know full analysis, but they believed us when we said this is what our capacities have resulted in.
Yes, I'm left with this final question. So I think page 68 of the capital [00:32:00] somewhere. We have like next steps, right? So why do why do we need the long-range Plan before the bond Summit?
Because if what we're coming against is that awhile the board? Agrees with the what's provided in the long range plan and is ready to move forward with the bond Summit this need to incorporate both of them. I'm wondering if we are.  to change our process.
so I don't know the answer to why do we need the long-range Plan before these next steps? Years of tradition piggybacking on that question. It's just from where did [00:33:00] this timeline come that places the approval of the long-range plan where it does prior to the next steps. I was some work that David like did eight ten years ago with long-range planning to commemorate the process that we that has been seen as successful for this school district.
And you'll note in his narrative. It is a process any time in any calendar year. It's a it's a timeline of durations of certain activities and it was their greatest interest that because it had become successful and had been practiced a few bonds. It was commemorated in a way that could inform board members long range planning members in into the future.
I don't know factually that you have to adopt the long-range plan now at some point you do before you would [00:34:00] put anything on a ballot you have to because it's the enabling but you know board legislation kind of that causes that to happen. If you don't have one.  Under law. You're not eligible for some things.
It might history with the district, you know before this ORS in 2017, which is new for us. We've we've created. These long-range plans as a way for I think our community to feel that before we came forward to them with projects. We had done this kind of Deep dive and study around where we were with our facilities the kind of programming that drives the facilities and therefore here's what we believe we need next in terms of capital Improvement projects.
So it almost feels like. The cart before the horse in terms of were coming before you with capital [00:35:00] Improvement projects, but we haven't done a deep dive into the priorities of the district and what drives the need for those kinds of facilities the research that goes behind that the narrative that explains the community why we are where we are and where the ask is.
So yeah, I will say that we. Probably are unique in that we do separate our long-range plan from our CIP.  It is it's the product of having done this repeatedly many years before there was any legislation that gave you any direction whatsoever. This District had a long-range Plan before any District in the state of Oregon and we are kind of.
Crafting it as we winds keep Ridin was there back in whatever 94 95 96 when that first plan was created and we have used that long range [00:36:00] plan as our road map into the future. I think I don't believe I think it was the 2000. To bond where we first introduced a capital Improvement program as a companion document to it.
And then we've just carried that practice forward into the future of where we are today.
Well, and then also just as a note because we utilize our our long-range plan aside from the statutory requirement and there are times when we will update our plan. In the absence of updating the the CIP. I mean we we do go through and every soft periodically we look at you know, where we trending or what do we need to be looking for in the future to guide the work of our long range planning committee itself?
So it's a tool that we've utilized in the [00:37:00] absence of statutory requirement previously. So if you feel that we would be more in compliance with ORS. Why not call the whole document the long-range plan and adopt long range plan part one tonight and adopt CIP, which is part 2 of the long-range plan in the future.
seems logical I was going to take a stab at it what your question which is I agree with the doctor Ludwig said which is that it does show the public we've done our homework, but also. Going forward in the bond Summit. It kind of puts us all on the same kind of shared foundation. And then when it does come time to improve the CIP makes it like a small pad more chewable.
I mean, it's a smaller piece. We're not going to be improving as much so it makes some sense to break it into pieces and to compile the lot does make sense to call it part 1 and part 2 rather than having two different names.
[00:38:00] I appreciate your questions. They're making me think for sure and. And I do want to do things the way that makes sense for today not because that's just the way they've always been done. I think there's virtue to the to doing things because they had value and tradition. And also we need to make sure that our processes are updated relevant to you know, what's going on in our communities today.
I like this idea of part one and part two it resonates with me. I think if ultimately we have to approve a CIP type, you know. That's basically what we do right approve a CIP and after post bond Summit and Community input and that is essentially what the going out for the bond is the approval of a CIP.
I guess when you when I think about why is this inserted here versus somewhere else, you know, I I often way what are the risks and benefits of making a move? And so that's what comes up for [00:39:00] me here. Like why not just approve part one, you know, why or why not what does it do for us? And so that's sort of I don't know if there's a reason why we wouldn't do it.
Verses of you know, you know what I'm saying with that like the motivation for not versus. Yes.  If I could have the board turn to what's in front of you the 2019 long range plan second reading an adoption resolution. If you look on the back, it's a proposed resolution. And the reason we're having this discussion is because the words matter to me and I couldn't I couldn't adopt it.
[00:40:00] The we hereby adopt through this resolution part 1 of V proposed amendment to the district's long-range school facility.
I can make it a motion if we're red if I don't want to End discussion prematurely. All right, I'm going to move with those changes that we adopt resolution 2018 to. I'll second that discussion and I just have a question for administrators in do you foresee that partial adoption being problematic or no?
Because because it's it it's is easily identifying what you are doing and [00:41:00] providing in in the resolution recognition that there's more to come. That you would want to see them together. And of course the second resolution would reflect on the first tie them together and there you go. I actually think it's a good idea and I appreciate Betty's comments about and and often over the years as we've gone through these Cycles.
There's always this time to remember because we have the CIP from those years, but then it's the remembering. How did we get to what we actually did There's of course a board resolution to put a.  have a ballot title out there that describes it but but that gap between there. So I think for the benefit of the future and the next time of board comes together to think and talk about this it will bring Clarity for them.
I think it's a good idea actually. Well, I think [00:42:00] because we have included in our long-range plan this memo that speaks to how we're in compliance with ORS. So we did kind of do I think what you were saying Sam? Where do we kind of delineate and we do do that in a memo prior to the statute because in there there's reference to the CIP.
It makes sense that it as we're in this these new times with the statute that we then include the CIP in some form along with his long-range plan to have this memo and then not have it be an adopted portion of it could leave someone feeling that we haven't addressed the statutes which we have.
Question
for Doctor Ludwig. I'm not sure when this question should be asked.  So, [00:43:00] can I continue speaking? Yes.  Okay. Sorry. Is there a potential is there potential for making greater utilization? Of the scent of the CTE and stem resources available through Clackamas Community College and Oregon institute for technology.
I don't know if that's a section A education framework question or if it's a CIP question and maybe dr. Ludwig already has the answer. Maybe was thoroughly considered during the high school study.  our task force. Well, I think certainly the high school study was a large part of. Addressing exactly that how do we expand?
Our courses our CTE courses at all three high schools. And I know there's still some misunderstanding that the third High School that are Tech would be the only [00:44:00] CTE focused high school. It's not all three high schools are going to get this lift around expanding CTE courses. It's not going to be exclusive to just one.
That's what the high school study showed us. Is that our students across across the district are interested in more coursework that has relevance to business and industry and how we can then design pathways.
The capital Improvement plan is about the facilities that we then fund that helps us with our program. So how that connects to other. Higher education schools is a that I don't know if we can make that direct lineage in that but certainly we can say that for our programming to have the kind of Effectiveness.
We want it relies on Partnerships in the community and we do speak to Partnerships in our long-range plan and Partnerships would include business and industry Partnerships as well as higher education [00:45:00] Partnerships, which then would include CCC and oit. So maybe that addresses your ask?
Plan or do you think it's adequately addressed but regarding Partnerships with specifically with CCC and oit?  I believe it's adequately addressed. So what I notice on page 32 is to do this the district. This is under Community Partnerships, which dr. Ludwig reference. The district is committed to certain actions which includes strength and Professional Organization and University Partnerships and then in terms of.
I don't see a connection to [00:46:00] particularly to community colleges, but in my thinking it was implied.
any other discussion.  it's on page 17. Oh, thank you.
Yes, it's under the stem section, which may be why it was wasn't found under the CTE section just by working collaboratively with the organ Institute of Technology and Clackamas Community College. The district develops courses and Pathways. Thank you Dr. Lin. Hey, we're going to take a vote what's on the table is resolution 2018 - to with Amendment and the fourth whereas and the first resolution.
[00:47:00] Okay.  I'm
sorry. Okay, just can I just as a note taking for our board secretary? All right. Have you kind of penciled in these changes? So then you're able to provide her with this document? Okay, and I'll thank I'll reiterate those changes. You want me to read the whole thing as I watch it, if you came. All right, here we go resolution number 2018 - to long-term facilities plan part 1 adoption of the amendment.
Whereas the school board adopted the long-range school facilities plan for the district on April 15th, 1996. And where I was the 1st 2nd 3rd and 4th amendments to the district's long term. Go facilities plan were adopted by the school board on September 22nd. 2004 beware 7th 2005 December 10, [00:48:00] 2007 and January 13, 2014.
And whereas the school board has reviewed and considered a fifth proposed amendment into the district's long-term school facilities plan and whereas a 20-19 West Linn Wilsonville School District school facilities plan will comply with RS night 195 110 school facility plan for large school districts.
17 and whereas Oregon statutes allow a public school district by resolution to impose construction excise taxes on non-exempt new construction provided that such district has first adopted a long-term school facilities plan. Now, therefore be it resolved that one the West Linn Wilsonville School Board here by adopts through with this resolution part, one of the fifth proposed amendment to the district's long-term school facilities plan and to until further Amendment or other action of the school board.
The district's long-term school facilities plan. As amended here by shall be current and affected for all purposes required or permitted Under Oregon law.  I would make one [00:49:00] change in here third whereas to be consistent. You should also say the school board has reviewed and considered part 1 of a fifth proposed amendment then that would mirror the resolution part 1 of a fifth proposed that makes is that chair fished is that we want to say part 1 of 2?
So that the next one we say part 2 of 2 so that we're not going to we don't have a number three coming.  Let's leave it at part 1.
Okay with those three changes and additional to the title change.  Director Molitor. Yes. As chair hides hi catfish. Yes.  Director King Martin. Yes director Reynolds. Thank you. [00:50:00] To everyone who works so hard on this I want to be clear that my questions were not any criticism of your work or the thinking or the philosophy or the details at all.
And if I could I also just like to say thank you as well to our long range planning committee who has worked on this very comprehensive update to this document as well as the camp started, you know. What's going to end up being our CIP? And I also appreciate like the discussion today on learning lessons.
Hey, why are we doing this? Are we complying with law? Let's think about this in any way and I think it was a valuable discussion to have with our long-term or a long range planning committee here because I think it'll probably shape the way in which. Update this down the road. So I'm just appreciative that you guys could show up this evening and continue to learn alongside of us as we develop these documents.
So, thank [00:51:00] you.