Springfield School Board — July 6, 2026

0:00 In justice for all. Director Cole will lead the land acknowledgment. We acknowledge that we are in the traditional homeland of the Kalapuya people, specifically the community that was known as Chifen, the area that we now call Springfield. Kalapuya people who have lived in this region since time immemorial, were illegally dispossessed of their land and forcibly removed to what are now the Grand Ronde and Siletz reservations over several years, but most notably in treaties between 1851 and 1855. The Kalapuya are now members of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde and the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, and members of the Kalapuya

0:46 still live, work, study, and thrive in this area, and continue to make important contributions here in Springfield, across the land we now refer to as Oregon, and around the globe. This information is shared out of a responsibility to honor the heritage and the humanity of all people, and to promote unity within our school district. Thank you. This first meeting in July is traditionally the organizational meeting for the district, and we'll start by electing board officers for the next school year. I want to check in and see if Amber's with us yet. Okay. I'm going to actually postpone that, if it's okay, until she's present. I think, yes, that's a good idea.

1:31 Okay. Do we have anyone else online, Jeff? Okay. Well, welcome to those folks who are Zooming in. I appreciate that. As I said, we're going to come back to the election of officers. We have a board member who has been on vacation and was still on the road when I talked to her 15 minutes ago, but she assures us she'll be here and attending online, so we'll wait till she's present. So we're going to move then to... Oh, there. Great. Hello, Amber. Hello. Welcome. Thank you so much- ... for attending.

2:17 We appreciate you being here. So we were just at that agenda item for election of officers. So since we are all here, we will then, I guess I'll entertain nominations. We'll start with the chair nomination. I nominate Jonathan. Second. And nominated Jonathan Light, nominated for board chair by Director Langworthy, seconded by Director Brew. Any other nominations? Hearing none, call for the vote. All in favor indicate by saying aye.

3:03 Aye. Aye. Aye. Are there any nay votes? Hearing none, I guess Director Light is the chair for this next year on a four to zero vote. Moving then to the board vice chair position. Again, I'll entertain a motion. I'd like to nominate Amber Langworthy. Okay. Nominated by Director Brew. I'll second. Seconded by Director Light. Are there any other nominations for vice chair? Hearing none, again, I'll call for the vote. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any against? Hearing none, congratulations, Director Langworthy.

3:52 Motion carries four to zero. Moving on then to agenda action item 3A, structural repairs, resolution 27 dash 2... I'm sorry, resolution 26-27.001. Mr. Yancey. Thank you. This afternoon it is recommended that the board of directors approve the resolution for structural repair services and a corresponding contract to Essex General Construction for a total contract amount of $3,431,695, plus a 7.82% owner's contingency budget, which is $268,305. The total projected budget for all sites equals

4:38 $3,700,000. I'll move approval. Moved by Director Cole. Second. Second by Director Brew. Comments, questions? I guess I would like to see if we can get, as the project goes on, monthly status report on expenditures and that, so we know how the project's going and how the budget is being spent out, and that's what I would look for. And I was also wondering if we could get information on the... I understand that we've

5:24 self-performed some work, whether it was part of the project or in preparation, and I was wondering if we can get a full accounting of how much. Do we track when we do that work? Do we track that as part of the project? That's not tracked part of the project because we didn't have a contract in place, so we perform that in-house with our own crews. Labor is not tracked because they're our full-time employees, and the cost is bolts. If you'd like us to track down the cost of the bolts used, I can ask facilities to do that. Okay. But we don't break it down for that type of repair in-house. We perform the repair. It was re-inspected by the structural engineer and signed off on Okay, so when we have people performing work on a project like that, we don't track that

6:10 separately in any way. That's part of their standard time. Correct. We don't distinguish that. Okay. I'll go ahead and jump in here. The recommendation as it stands, I'm going to have a hard time getting my head around a yes. I want to thank Brad for sending the structural reports. That was helpful. But I was looking for some kind of an executive summary, something that would sort of break it down by school. I started creating my own spreadsheet with the information that I found. The majority of the buildings are actually not requiring

6:58 any further action. There were a few, the EMC, admin, transportation, were fine with the recommendation of coming back five years and reinspecting. But for some reason, with the exception of Walterville, the only one that needed work, I couldn't find it for Willamette Leadership Academy, and that could be because they're not included because it's their building. Bratton Campus, Thurston, Briggs, Thurston Middle, Centennial, Guiley, Page, Thurston Elementary, and Two Rivers. Now, I don't want to make the assumption that they need work, but I couldn't find the same summary that I found on all the other

7:46 schools that were by and large no votes. And so as I'm working through creating my spreadsheet, I thought this is something that sort of goes beyond board member expertise, certainly, responsibility. So that gets back to usually when you have a comprehensive project, there's some kind of a summary document, and that's what was missing. I would suggest maybe looking through PACE's document, the engineering isn't required to be done until 2029. I'm not suggesting that we wait till then. Obviously, there's work to be done, and when you look at those pictures, it's very obvious that there's some issues that we need to deal with.

8:32 But my suggestion would be to maybe back up a little bit and do a summary that would allow us to prioritize, and then have the board fund by project, which could be a grouping of projects. So I don't know if we still have time to do anything this summer, but if we do, take the prioritization and see as much as we can if we can fund internally through our capital improvements and/or contingency and avoid the conventional financing from... And then if things are scheduled to be, or we take the next list of priorities for next summer, again, we can bundle those. The board can have a meeting

9:19 at any time to approve funds. And so, I just think for my own self, I need a real clear understanding. This is a big dollar value. This is $4 million. Not comfortable with a 30% contingency, and so I'd like to back up a little bit. I talked to a structural engineer, who said, "Well, if you're concerned about the 30%," and the reason is because there's some things you can't see. He said, "The majority of times on a project like this where you're dealing with beams 45 feet, they're in the ceiling, so you can see the entire length. On those instances where you can't, then open them up, do the estimate so that you're

10:06 bidding on a known quantity of work to be done." Does that make sense? I understand what you're saying. I think two things. One is- Yep ... I guess I don't recall in the emails seeing was there a document from PACE that talked about the requirement for the repairs? No, it was something that I found online. Oh, okay. There was a clarification. I hadn't seen it. Okay. Yeah, and it was informative. But it says, yeah, basically that... And Brad, if I'm incorrect on that, but we have to complete the identification of affected buildings and inspections of bowstring trusses and glulam beams by June 30th, 2029. Now, just

10:53 again, looking at those pictures, I don't want to wait till 2029. We're this close. I just want to back up a little bit, maybe hit pause, get more information so that we as a board can make better decisions. Or at least I'm speaking for myself, so- Yeah. The design might make more sense given your background, Ken, but I was struggling working through the actual documents. Yeah. So, and I think as far as the breakdown of the other facilities that we're missing, that's in the bid documents. And what I understood was that the engineer didn't-- What they provided was the design drawings and specifications to do those repairs, and then after those repairs are done, we'll get a similar

11:38 letter that we got to the facilities that don't require work. And so if you look in the bid documents, it actually breaks out those facilities and how much each facility, the price to do the work at each facility. That's correct. Yeah. And if that's true, then I couldn't find that document. But I'm not opposed to coming back and taking a look at this- Yeah ... once I have that information. And I would also point out, you mentioned the 30% contingency they've- Dialed that back here. They're saying that 7.82% is what they're proposing for a contingency now to move forward. So it's not the 30% they're asking for at this

12:24 time, staff asking for. Okay. Well, that's getting closer. But it's also the aspect of financing conventionally. I would rather see if there's a way we can do it through our own budget. Okay. Just clarification. I'm not sure what document you're referring to, but I pulled the information out of our property declaration and our policy. Our buildings are uninsured if not repaired, effective immediately. So, obviously we have to get a majority, but 2029 is when... I don't know what that is, but I can tell you, looking at our property declarations, it's specifically called out in our current insurance policy. Okay. So, I want to make sure that I'm on the record notifying the board, so it takes

13:09 the liability off of me. Okay. Yeah, somewhere in here in one of these... Let me see. It seems that they came back and made modifications to the original ruling, but I don't want to take board meeting time to find that. Yeah. But you're welcome to- Yeah, I pulled the information out of our actual property declarations- Mm-hmm ... for our 2026/2027 covered policy. So, that's what is bound effective now. Okay. Well, and we've talked about that at a previous meeting, that if we had an event and it was having a relationship to these beams or the bow trusses, that

13:57 they might disallow. Correct. And then it would be the district's challenge to repair or reconstruct with no insurance coverage. Mm-hmm. Speaking for myself, I'm comfortable moving forward. I don't know much, but I do know construction cost is going to go up a lot faster than our property tax revenues do. And, I feel like the due diligence has been done on the building, so work needs to be done, and I'm supportive of the 10-year financing horizon. I think that that's reasonable and has minimum

14:42 impact on our general fund, as best as we can. I would worry that if we tried to do it pay-as-you-go, you're going to get some things that are a lot more expensive than we planned, and other things that potentially are less. But I feel like you're kind of gambling with your education budget by doing that. That's my opinion. Okay. Yeah, and I would like to see us move ahead with the work and get it done. I'm concerned about ongoing increases in construction costs.

15:27 We have a bid, and my understanding, I think if we delay further, then we're scrapping this bid, and we have to go through the process of advertising again and getting contractors in. I'd like to see us move ahead with this project now. And I think if we break it up into smaller pieces, each of those individual pieces added together will cost significantly more than one big job. Yeah. There's kind of economies of scale going on here of having a single contractor as opposed to piecemealing it. Yeah, I agree. Okay. Director Langworthy, any comments, questions? Yeah, those are really good points. I appreciate that.

16:16 Let me gather myself here. So with the 10 year, I'm a little afraid with that 10 year, just because it's going to be double the price, right, in interest? Double the interest, yes. Double the interest. Sorry. Double the interest. Amber, just a second. Yeah. Mm-hmm. So at this point, we're still discussing the contract- Oh ... and then we'll discuss the finance after. So- Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. Yeah. I just got home from a seven-hour drive, 10, 15 minutes ago. Yeah. I think that you guys make a good point when it

17:01 comes to your concern about if we scrap this now and everything goes up, what will we have done to ourselves? My big problem is, I actually came to this conclusion myself, that we don't have an executive summary here. I just would like for the public to know clearly what we're voting for, and if they were to just glance over this.

17:47 But I would be in favor of going ahead with this because of the points that Ken and Bob brought up. But I really would like this to be a summary to be brought forward. That's what I'm a little wishing we had. I think that's something we can ask for and get at a future meeting and just get a report back on- That, and I would hate to see that hold up the project myself. Sure. I just wonder when we can get that executive summary, with the cost details or the projected cost. So may I make a suggestion, Director Leigh?

18:32 Mm-hmm. I'm happy to work with staff to come up with it. I'd like to speak with some board members just to make sure that we're giving what you think is needed, but I think that's very doable. I also think giving updates monthly if needed or as needed, because if there's nothing happening in a certain month- Yeah ... I'm pretty sure you don't want an update. They seem very reasonable to me. The one thing I would like to also point out is I can certainly understand the argument, to see what's happening to make sure that we need it. I think from my understanding of what is driving this, it is the insurance. And then also if we don't have that building covered and something happens, we also take the

19:17 risk of liability too, because we knew about it as a district and chose not to address it. And that's one thing that would be very compelling to me, that we don't want to have that unintentionally happen. For good reasons, right? We definitely want to be good stewards of the public's funds. But this is one where because of the situation and the history of the failures, my recommendation would be to go ahead and proceed. And I hear you with the contingencies. It is a little bit higher than typically you see on a project, but there's so many unknowns here, that I think it merits a little bit of a higher contingency, and I think staff has worked on lowering that, as we pointed

20:04 out. That's the one thing that worries me is, is the savings going to be worth the potential risk? And that really is what the board needs to balance out. I want to be clear, I'm not opposed to this project, nor am I against the need for this project. But I'm wondering with the timing, the urgency. Let me ask an insurance question then. If we approve this and the financing today, and let's just say next winter we have a snow load and it brings down a part of a building, but we didn't get to the repair in time, does that cover us? No. Yeah. So- Not until the repair is actually completed, and we have a certified letter, as

20:51 you've seen with several other buildings. Mm-hmm. If we have one of those letters for every building, then we're 100% covered. So do we have a list of prioritization? We have a list of the cost. An engineer is going to say they're all a priority because there's required repair to be done. What we need to do is we need to, once we have hired a general contractor, we need to be able to sit down with that general contractor and the engineer, go through the plans, and develop the work plan and the timeline and the priority. We have not done that because we haven't had a contractor on board, and it is dependent on lead time and materials, which right now we know that it's probably six to eight-week lead time on some of these materials. We obviously couldn't

21:36 order those until we had a contractor on board because they're ordering it. So it's the cart before the horse. The pivotal part is getting a contractor on board. And will they be able to start then immediately? There's a six to eight-week lead time, and so unless they have the materials on hand or readily available, they'll do what they can with what they have until they get substantial materials, which is standard. Well, six to eight weeks puts us back into the next school year. Correct. So feasibly, no work can be done this summer. Well, again, if they have any materials on hand, and we haven't had that level of conversation with Essex because that's not our role,

22:23 and then we would have a discussion about weekend work, after-school work. Those are all conversations to come. That's pretty standard when you're working with a contractor. Okay. And again, with so many unknowns, it makes sense that we'll provide you updates. So once we get, we'll be able to better answer the question, do they have those materials on hand? Thank you. And we can provide that as a report for the board. For sure. So if I may, just a question or two. First of all, Mr. Yancey, thank you for working with that contingency. That's much more palatable, and I know it's not ideal, but I appreciate you doing that.

23:08 Given that this is a multi-phase construction project, I assume we're pre-approved, say, for this line of credit, and then they draw it down as the work is completed? So once a financing is in place, we'll take all of that, and we'll put it in our account or an escrow account that's interest-bearing. Okay. And then there's an amortization schedule and a payment schedule that's set up. The four options you have, one of them will impact this year's budget, one of them will not impact this year's, and it'll be a 2027/28 obligation. Okay. Well, I'll wait till we get to the financing.

23:54 If this doesn't go through, then there's obviously nothing to- Yeah ... to move on the financing. But to that point, but we are paying the contractor as the work is done. Correct. So if they don't do anything this year, that money is just building up interest for another year. Yeah. We'll put it in a dedicated line item, and it'll wait until the work is done. This is dedicated specifically for this project, which is part of the qualification for financing, is the finance institutions want to know exactly what the work is going to be done. Mm-hmm. So we're not taking 3.7 million and buying vehicles or whatever it is. So we'll be earning interest on these funds? Yeah. We'll schedule it out based on our cash flow and maximize as much

24:40 earnings as we can. But we'll also be paying interest on this. On the amortization schedule. It will be predetermined based on our payback. Sure. Any other questions? Director Langworthy? No. Okay. We're good? Mm-hmm. I'll go ahead then and call for the vote. All in favor... I'll do a roll call vote on this one so it's clear. Director Cole? Yes. Director Brew? Yes. Director Langworthy? Yes. Director Light? No. So motion carries three to one.

25:25 Moving on to the item 3B, consensus of financing option for required structural repairs. Director Yancey. Or I'm sorry, Mr. Yancey. Yeah. Thank you. So, obviously the board's decision to make on which options you want. As a district, we worked with both of these financing institutions, First American and Piper Sandler. Piper Sandler we worked with mainly on our general obligation bonds, although we have done a few full faith in credits with them. I've listed them out as option one, and this is on the very back page where the four options are listed out. Option one is a five-year schedule with First American Equipment Finance. That first payment would be due September 1st of 2027, so

26:10 that would not impact this year's budget. Second option is the same scenario of a five-year schedule, but with Piper, and the first payment, which would be an interest-only payment, would be due February 1st, which would impact this year's budget, and we don't currently have a set-aside. We'd have to adjust this year's budget to make that payment. Third option is the 10-year option under First American. Again, first payment due September 1st of 2027. The fourth option is Piper 10-year, interest payment due February 1st of this current budget year. And the details are also included as far as the interest payment amounts and principal amounts, and those types of things. So,

26:55 the reason I'm calling for a consensus is that the authorizing resolution, it's fine to wait until August for that, because obviously there's time before we're going to have to be writing big checks. But it requires a bond council to prepare that authorizing resolution, and I didn't want to have them spend money on preparing four different resolutions. I thought that it's best if I get a leaning, have the bond council prepare the resolution, then come back in August with the consensus for which option the board chooses to go with. If that makes sense. Mr. Chair, just to get the ball rolling, can I move to for option three?

27:42 Yeah, I don't think a motion is required, right? You're looking for basically a leaning, so we can just jump in with- Oh, okay ... the questions or the leanings, and it might be good to start with how you're thinking. So, I liked option three. First of all, it looks to have lower cost overall, which I appreciate. It's less complex than the full faith and credit. Jump in, Mr. Yancey, if I'm incorrect, but I think it's less complex than the full faith and credit obligation. And even though the total interest is more over 10 years, it impacts each of our school years

28:28 less. And since these payments are essentially competing against classroom teachers, I'd like to keep them as low as possible, even if it means going out a little bit further. I'm leaning myself towards the 10 year, because in budgeting, it's sort of today's dollars for today's students. These are long-term repairs that are going to obviously, hopefully go well beyond 10 years. But at least it spreads it out through that cycle, so I think the 10-year term makes sense from that standpoint also. Just a quick question. Is there any penalty if we

29:16 were to pay early on some of this? No, I specifically called for no penalty clauses- Okay ... in all the financing options. And we typically will do that with every financing going forward, just mainly because I think it's just good practice. If you have a situation where you're surprised or something happens and you want to pay down debt, it's always a good option to pay down debt. Okay. Yeah. I'm okay with the 10 year, and I think the First American makes sense, that we're not paying until the next budget cycle. Thanks. Director Langworthy, any questions? Yeah, I've

30:05 been weighing on this, just because if we do the 10 years, I see the point that you're all making. But I also know that if we do the five years, then we pay less in that time, by a significant amount. It's a hard call, because I think I'm just now seeing these prices And I do agree, again, you guys make really good points about the 10 year that gives us more money for the teachers, and hopefully by then we can

30:50 do those exit surveys, start figuring things out, and really setting ourselves up to get more students in our schools. So, this is a hard one for me. So, I hate to do this, but I'm going to pull the "I'm from another state" card, because when we have building projects in every jurisdiction, we've had operating budget, and then we've had a capital budget, and we don't ever mix those two. Mm-hmm. So, I want to ensure that it's the same here. That even if we go with the five-year financing, that won't really affect

31:38 our operating budget- Mm ... for teachers. Or will it? No, it definitely could. Okay. Unfortunately, Oregon, a lot of other states have figured out capital, and Oregon has not. Okay. They tend to, it's all one operating budget. Right. And I don't know if North Carolina is like this, but I know states that have dedicated capital resources. Yeah. We have dedicated capital, and we don't ever mix the two. Yeah. We're not allowed to. Unfortunately, Oregon's not in that same position. Yeah. And if we had a capital bond, those monies would be separated. Correct. Yeah. So is it a choice? Hopefully that will be the only time I say that, but we'll see. So is that a choice that we don't do that? That we don't have it separated? To answer that question directly, we've never had enough funding

32:23 to have a dedicated capital unless we have a general obligation bond or something like that. We've had capital funds in our budget, but not separated. But not dedicated. And to answer, so in different states like North Carolina, they actually have a contribution into capital. Oregon does not have a contribution into capital. And you can't merge the funds via state? No. That's right. No, they have to be for certain things. So we, for instance, have a dedicated sales tax that we can use for operations and facilities and something like this. Yeah, the only option we would have is if we had a local levy and you dedicated local levy dollars towards- Makes complete- ... capital, but obviously we don't have that.

33:08 Hmm. So since there's no motion on the table, I will ask individual board members if they have a leaning so we can give Brett some direction. I'm leaning towards option three, which is the First American option for 10 years. I am as well. Same. Yes. Director Langworthy? Yeah, I suppose I am leaning that way as well, because I don't want to affect our teachers as much as we have already. So yes. Okay. And- I do wish we had more information, or more time to digest this. I did bring this up on June 8. I did provide this information on June 8.

33:56 I think the thing that's also compelling is the way Mr. Yancey put it, is that we can do the early payoff. So, essentially we could almost have the same schedule as the five-year if we wanted to. Yeah. So again, I think having more flexibility is better than having less. Thank you. And I'll go ahead with the leaning of the board also, so you can... All right. Thank you. And then- I'll prepare a- You'll bring that back in August. In August, yeah. The authorizing resolution. It'll be authorizing resolution, and then along with that we'll bring a resolution to appropriate the funds, because right now we don't have the authority to spend- Mm ... any of that money in our current budget.

34:41 So there's going to be two separate actions, which is consistent with what we've done in the past. Yeah. And just so nobody freaks out, all that's doing is saying we're authorized to take in that loan money and basically put it in a bank. We're not making any additional payments or anything this year. Correct. And it's also taking that money in and then authorizing us to, as we get invoices from the contractor, being able to pay that. Okay, thank you. Then moving on to agenda item 3C, the approval of the board meeting calendar for '26, '27. Board members, last meeting we got a document that sort of

35:28 had two proposals. One of basically two meetings per month. The other basically one meeting per month. So, Superintendent Stover, would you like to go ahead and sort of review the two? Yeah. It's fairly simple. Thank you, Director Light, and good evening, board members. As you indicated, we have two options. It's my understanding that the option one, which has basically two work sessions except for November, December, March, and May, or two sessions, one business meeting and then one work session,

36:13 is what is the cadence that has happened in the district typically. The reason we don't have the work sessions in November and December, and this is pretty common, is that you have so much going on with Christmas break and Thanksgiving break or the holidays, I should say. And then the same thing for March. You have spring break and the holidays. In May you have a lot of school activities. That doesn't mean you can't have work sessions, but I think that's the rationale for it. The other one is kind of like the diet- ... coke of meetings. That's where you have one meeting. I think the delta there is they're going to either be very long meetings, and you're going to have lots of information. I think you'd have information overload.

36:58 I particularly like the work session because then that allows staff to go deep into certain projects, and then if we know the schedule, the board can plot out what they want when, and we can have a cadence and give staff plenty of time to prepare those types of sessions that you would like to hear about. But these are your meetings. So, that's the difference between the two. And of course, we can do some variation therein of that, depending on what you would want. For instance, I know we're going to vote on the retreat. Maybe coming out of that retreat, we have some ideas we want to change. I think we would like to get it out there to at least say these are when we know we're going to have the meetings, and then we can do our public notice and add on

37:46 meetings as we need. Obviously, the more lead time we give people, the better, but there's nothing that says this is written in stone. Thank you. Yeah. So, I would move approval for option one or the status quo meeting calendar, meeting schedule. Okay. The same for me. I think if we go to option two, we'll either end up with- Need a second, I think, Bob- We just need a second. Oh, a second. Sorry. Thank you. Sorry. I have a second. It's just protocol. So we have a motion on the floor by Director Cole and a second by Director Brew. Okay. Yeah, thank you. So comments or questions? Go ahead. So, I like option one. The option two with the fewer meetings, I

38:32 think as Superintendent Stover mentioned, we either end up with ridiculously long meetings, or we end up with scheduling more meetings anyway. And, having more meetings on the schedule, it's easier to cancel a meeting than it is to add one at the last minute, and God forbid we have a meeting that we don't need. So I would... Yeah, I like option one, and to discuss it further at the retreat. Director Langworthy? I like option one as well, and we'll have the opportunity to add more. This past year, every board meeting has been packed full, so I do

39:17 see us adding a few more. We have 18 on here, but, yep, option one. Here, Sean. You know. Yeah. Hmm. So I'm fine with option one, particularly with the ability to adjust at our retreat. The option I just passed out actually adds meetings in the month of November, March, and May, and they're highlighted in yellow.

40:02 And the reason for that is that we've been told that when we're asking for information, there's just not enough time to get to everything. And then if you couple that with the agenda prioritization that the board developed, and we've gotten to so few of those, I would rather schedule to allow more time and then, as Bob says, cancel as needed. I'm not necessarily pro-meeting just to have meetings. But I do want to allow enough time, particularly on the work session aspect, of allowing enough time to go deeper on some of these things. Some of the human resource personnel things, curriculum, things like that, behavior,

40:48 exit surveys, you name it. There's a lot of things that we seem curious about. So this is just something to think about before the retreat. I also think it makes more sense to go back to our designation of regular meetings and work sessions, rather, and then truly if we have to add another meeting, it would be a special meeting. And hopefully, we never have to declare an emergency, meaning no more ice storms. But we never know. So those are just, again, something to think about. And then also the... And I have to say, Superintendent Stover, I stole this from your district because all meetings start

41:33 at 6:00. And I think, well, that makes it easier on the public, makes it easier for board members, makes it easier for staff, moves it up an hour. So, at least something to think about. I don't know how that would impact families or community support, but it might be something then we talk about at the retreat. So... Thank you, Jonathan. That sounds really excellent. As I was saying earlier, we were busy this past year. Every board meeting was packed full and went on for quite some time, and I know I would appreciate some more time to digest and have discussion. Okay. So there's a motion on the floor and a second.

42:19 So on the proposed, is it option one? I'll go ahead and roll call vote on that. Director Langworthy? Yes. Director Brew? Yes. Director Cole? Yes. And Director Laitos, yes. So that carries four to nothing. May I ask a clarifying question? Yes. I appreciate you providing this. Do you want us to prepare a report for you maybe on the August 10th or August 24th about any pros and cons of adding these three? Or do you want us to... The three that you suggested, the 30th, the 29th, and the 24th. Do we want to just talk about it at the retreat, and then we'll come back and bring you amend it if that's what we decide?

43:04 And I think it would be valuable for the board to have that input so that we can, again, sort of ponder it as we do this. Right. And then maybe as board members, we can reach out to the public and the folks we know, teachers, staff- Yeah ... and sort of touch base with the pros and cons of that also. So here's what I would suggest then. We can talk about it at the retreat, and then we'll bring you, by the 24th, a kind of like, "Here's some things to think about if you want to do this," because these are your meetings. I'm very ambivalent on it, and I think it's better to have it planned out and for us to try to keep business meetings for business and work sessions just for those reports, so that we can all learn together.

43:50 Right. It would be my preference. And there have been occasions though, where we had to change the designation of a work session so we could take action, so the board has seen that. But I think it's better, particularly for the public and staff to know- That's right ... not only work session, but then what's the topic of the work session. Mm-hmm. And I know that some districts also include or allow public comment at work sessions as long as it pertains to the work session topic. So that might be something else that we think about. So anyway. Yeah, that'd be great. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Superintendent, as you're doing that pros and cons, also, if there's any cons to moving the meetings to 6:00, that would be good to know. Yeah.

44:35 Yeah. Great. And the final action item, 3D, is to approve a retreat date. I know that we tentatively talked about August 5th, but we have not made any decision on that. So I will move for approval of this action item. I'll second. Okay. So moved by Director Light, seconded by Director Brew.

45:20 And comments or questions? I think we kind of polled before, and so that works for me. That date works for me. August 5th, yeah. That works for me too. Works for me. Director Langworthy? Sorry, Bob. Yeah, that works for me as well. And for me. Do we know times yet or anything like that? Tan and I were designated to work with Superintendent Stover. So we've had one meeting, and now with the date, then we're meeting... Is it Tuesday or Thursday? Thursday. Thursday, okay. So we're meeting. So if you have any ideas or thoughts on the agenda, please let either of us know and we can bring those forward.

46:07 But yeah, I think it's important that it is in August. I would stay flexible. So, yeah. So I'm okay if it changes, but my schedule's pretty open in August, so. It's going to sound really strange, but I'm happier with a longer day than a shorter one. Particularly if a significant portion of the day is going to be taken up with trainings. I think there's a lot of agenda setting and future discussion items and so on that I'd like to make sure doesn't get crowded out by a trainer, so. Thank you.

46:53 Okay, so we have a motion for August 5th. I'll go ahead and do a roll call vote on that. Director Cole? Yes. Director Brew? Yes. Director Light? Yes. Director Langworthy? Yes. So August 5th it is. Motion carries four to nothing. Our next regularly scheduled meeting is our meeting on August 10th, a business meeting at 7:00 PM. And this meeting is adjourned.