2021-04-08 PPS School Board Intergovernmental Committee Meeting

From SunshinePPS Wiki
District Portland Public Schools
Date 2021-04-08
Time 17:00:00
Venue Virtual/Online
Meeting Type committee
Directors Present missing
Load video
YouTube


Documents / Media

Notices/Agendas

Materials

Minutes

None

Transcripts

Event 1: Board of Education's Intergovernmental Committee Meeting 4 08 21

00h 00m 00s
pronouns i'm the chair of this committee and then directors moore and director brim edwards are um the members of the committee and director bailey is joining us here because it's such a fun committee people don't want to miss it um and then we're going to have staff with us as well and i know we've got our public commenters here so let's go ahead and um dive into the public comment and i believe we have three people um for public comment and let me bring that up as well we have um i think it is a is it ada crandall joe cortwright and aaron brown is that right are the three of you sort of um just fine i know it's all on the same subject are you sort of testifying in a combined way or separately yeah uh board member scott first oh it is online sorry i it wasn't streaming but it is um we were hoping it would be ada joe and then myself that's all right thank you yeah that's absolutely fine um so let's go ahead and dive in and uh you'll have three minutes each and we'll just give you a friendly reminder when we get to that point um so aydah i think you are going to kick us off yes good afternoon my name is aydah crandall and i'm a freshman at grant high school when i was in seventh grade at harriet tubman my classmates and i learned that our school had some of the worst air pollution in the entire state tubman sits just 30 feet from one of the busiest parts of i-5 and on bad days we could literally see smog in the air during recess as we started learning more about diesel pollution and the associated health risks we got involved with the fight to pass house school 2007 which would regulate diesel emissions in the state of oregon we got on a school bus and drove to salem where we gave testimony in favor of the bill and spoke to our legislators about how important it was to us when hb 2007 ended up passing it felt like a huge victory it was the first time i truly believed that even as a kid people would care what i had to say and that our legislators and leaders would be willing to do what it took to build a better world for future generations but i was wrong shortly after the diesel regulation bill passed i learned that odot had plans to expand i-5 even further it doesn't take an expert to tell you that more lanes means more vehicles and more vehicles means more pollution around my school and in the albino neighborhood i don't go to tubman anymore but that doesn't make me any less concerned i am worried for the safety of future generations of students and i want them to go outside and see trees and grass and a beautiful blue sky not huge diesel trucks on a freeway that's so close to our school it may as well be the playground i don't want them to have to worry about whether or not the air they're breathing at recess will one day lead to asthma or lung cancer these are not big asks these are basic human rights that i assumed portland public schools would want to fight for tubman students in the albino neighborhood should not be denied the basic right to clean air and school board members it is your responsibility to fight for these rights as i've continued my work with climate justice i've also realized that the situation at tubman is a lot more than just an environmental problem it's not a coincidence that the richer predominantly white schools on the west side are not dealing with these same issues as tubman a school that serves 60 students of color time and time again black brown and indigenous people have been disproportionately affected by climate disasters and targeted by racist city planning policies and the rose quarter freeway expansion is a perfect example of this there is absolutely no way odot can claim freeway expansion as restorative justice when the original construction of i-5 is what displaced many original albino residents in the first place and when the existing freeway is literally making tubman's students sick i'm excited about the proposals put forth by the by the albino vision trust and the ideas of capping the freeway but all of these things can be done without odot spending 800 million dollars on increasing toxic emissions in addition to concerns about what this expansion will mean for air pollution i'm also terrified about its climate impact already 40 percent of oregon's carbon emissions come from transportation and i don't understand how people can sit idly by and watch odot make those statistics worse when we have so little time to take action against the climate crisis my future my classmates future are siblings futures and the entire tubman and portland community is depending on all of you to wake up and realize that the crisis we're facing we're counting on you to choose the right side of history and stand with us as we fight for racial social and climate justice we're counting on you to stand with us as we demand odot conduct a full environmental impact statement on the rose quarter freeway expansion because it is the only way to guarantee the protection of our lungs communities and planet thank you aydah appreciate that appreciate your testimony okay uh next up uh joe cortwright and if everyone could just make sure you're muted when you're not talking that would be um mrs crandall is a very difficult act to follow bps is doing a great job um so i'm going to talk a little bit about the effect of the rose quarter project on
00h 05m 00s
tubman middle school i'm with no more freeways i'm an economist in town and uh as you know tubman middle school predates the existence of i-5 it was originally built schools built originally in 1950 and the um the i5 freeway not built until about 12 years later so the freeway really has intruded onto the school grounds already and odot's plan is to move it even closer and it looks like something on the order of 20 or 25 feet closer and we've looked at the plans or tried to get as best we can the plans we followed followed or filed public records requests to get plans and the materials that i've submitted to you for the record i have shown the plans that we were able to obtain by our public records request i've shown you how that compares to the property lines for the tubman site and as you can see there's not only a take of tubman property that's anticipated here but also there's the construction of two sound walls and just to give you some idea because in all of their renderings of the project they haven't designed as far as i know produced any renderings that show what these sound walls do to um to tubman middle school but they're 22 foot tall town sound walls that will run for more more than a thousand feet from the far end of lillis albina park um past the school to flint avenue and just for reference the berlin wall was only about half that high so this is a rather significant wall and the other thing i need to emphasize is we're a little bit unclear on where these will be exactly be located the plans aren't as precise as we would like moreover as as we now know um the projects expert review peer review committee has recommended that the sound walls be moved even closer to the school because they don't think they're effective in their current location and they're by the by the way i mentioned there are two of them the other thing i want to emphasize and i think this is significant is i don't think you can trust odot's air quality or noise analysis because it's predicated on them building a six-lane freeway rather than the 10 lane or eight-lane freeway that they can easily build given the hundred and sixty foot roadway that they're constructing and in just the last two months or so we've obtained three odot documents they're contained in the material that i've submitted that show you this isn't just a four lane to six lane expansion it's really as much as a 10 lane expansion and their traffic modeling and their air quality modeling and their noise modeling doesn't reflect the volume of traffic that would be moving through and past the school and through this neighborhood with a 10 lane freeway which they can easily accomplish and the other thing that i've documented in the material here and i'm sure it's well known to you is just a dramatic socio-economic and demographic disparity between the children who have to breathe in this site and go to school here and the commuters who are going by on the road and the fiscal disparity between portland public schools being expected to pay 10 or 15 million dollars just to make the air quality in the building breathable while odots was going to spend 800 million dollars next door to make the problem worse so there's a huge socioeconomic and racial disparity obviously between who benefits from this project and who bears the costs of it with that i'll just uh pause and if there's any questions i'm happy to answer them and thank you very much for the opportunity to comment great thank you joe i appreciate the comment we generally don't engage in q a during the public comment but we are going to be discussing this on our agenda today so you're welcome to stick around i think we'll have a thank you update on the projects all right aaron good afternoon i have to follow both ada and joe so that's really difficult um first uh my name is aaron brown i've worked with many of you on some various school boards and or school bonds and levies it's great to see many of you here today and um i also just first want to predict that man it's been a rough year and i'm so grateful for all of pbs's time and attention um i can't even imagine that somehow we've got time to chat with you about this knowing that the reopening conversation is about to go underway um and i just want to express my sincere gratitude to all of you navigating uh really the unfathomably difficult circumstances uh it is exemplary public service that all of you have navigated this last year so just uh true command accommodations and appreciation um i'm really just here to play clean up on anything that ada and joe missed and they didn't miss all that much i would just say that um no more freeways the organization that joe and i and aydah uh joe and i especially have been part of um filed a lawsuit this last week um through a nepa complaint along with our partners at neighbors for clean air as well as the elliott neighborhood association um we're happy to provide it sounds like many of you have already gotten some of this documentation we're happy to follow up with any and all of you afterwards to be able to look through the specifics of this complaint but there's one or two specific details that i wanted to just make sure um getting ahead of some of odot's response to our lawsuits so um odots after our lawsuit was essentially pointing out a lot of stuff joe mentioned about hiding um some of the traffic projections were bunk and all of the ways in which odat was deliberately
00h 10m 00s
misrepresenting the impacts that this project would have to the tubman community to the lungs of the tubman students to the planet that the tubman students stand to inherit and uh what just that much poisonous air means in this greater scheme of restorative justice in the albino neighborhood um in 2019 we thoroughly debunked all of their traffic projections uh joe is the traffic wonk i i did not have quite the same math education that i think uh joe and ada and others are going for but um we found numerous parts in odot's traffic projections when they were blatantly misrepresenting the proposed traffic implications and that is relevant because as joe mentioned it's not just about the lanes but it's also about oda did not study the impacts of congestion pricing which the oregon uh house bill 2017 funding that provides the funding for the rose quarter is also supposed to allow they did not study the impacts of induced demand we know its empirical reality that um expanding lanes of a freeway makes more people drive odat didn't study the impacts of that on their traffic projections odot included the columbia river crossing which never got built in their traffic projections they include multiple freeway expansions that never got built but in their modeling did in multiple circumstances their fingers were on the scales that changed how many cars and throughput are going through that neighborhood which therefore lend unnecessary egregious ridiculousness to their assertions that somehow this will be the first freeway expansion anywhere in north america ever the unicorn of a freeway expansion to reduce air pollution or to reduce carbon emissions um so a year after we came up with that that was all in 2019 when we got on the record when i conducted this peer review that you might have heard a little bit in some of their comments in the last week and that peer review uh they brought in a bunch of independent consultants that specialized in air pollution and carbon emissions and all of them said yeah actually there's three ways going to lower air pollution and carbon emissions and the reason they were able to say that is that these consultants were not given the opportunity to critique the data that odot originally provided so odot's bunk data that we dissected two years ago was never challenged or critiqued so if odette comes back to you in the weeks and months ahead saying oh look we don't worry about these guys don't know what they're talking about well odot didn't let that you know peer review panel actually review the spot where odot hid all of the data um so i'm happy to stick around and answer questions i know that this is a meeting so we'll just be listening in but um uh we're having a rally tomorrow at tubman by the way thank you to your facility staff that have graciously allowed us to pay for the right to show up and trash the building before the students and not the building we'll be in the yard and we will be very respectful and we'll have uh plenty of garbage cans but um on friday afternoon tomorrow from five to seven we've got a bunch of speakers uh including aydah's is going to be speaking in joe um and some other community leaders and i just wanted to make sure that all of you felt invited and welcome to join us tomorrow at tubman at 5pm thank you very much for your service great thank you thanks to the three of you for your testimony today um and and i do appreciate the um the powerpoint uh it was sent around the board members and i would just say to my fellow directors if you haven't had a chance to look through it it is it has a lot of very interesting and helpful information um is that powerpoint something that you'll be making available on your website and if so do you want to say what that website is yeah we'll it'll be at least two places we have two websites we have the no more freeways website that uh that aaron supervises and also i run a little think tank called city observatory and it's part of our analytical work looking at the impact of freeways on cities and throughout the united states so it'll be posted there as well so www.nomorefreewayspdx.com sorry cityobservatory.org thank you very much excellent um just as like submitted comments just like as yeah i think i think the issue um julia is that we don't we don't generally allow people to do testimony to do presentations so um that's the only reason why we didn't allow them to show it today um was just just because of that rule so i i wanted to let people know where it would be available um so they could think they could take a look at it yeah well it's not too much of an issue because it's not like that presentation but i think it just happened to us written comments as well okay great let's let's look into that yeah and julia it's really hard to hear you so just just fyi i don't know if that's something we can fix as we go forward in the meeting but i could i could hear you but it was kind of cutting in and out so um but yes we will we will look into that option uh okay let's dive in um i know courtney we had legislative update uh next on the agenda did you have anything you wanted to share with this group yeah um thank you director scott and hello uh good evening board members we've got a couple couple extras tonight nice to see uh director constant and director bailey um so as you can expect based on my uh my many weekly updates about legislative session things are
00h 15m 00s
moving really fast it's really hard to do this virtually everything's so formal because you have to set meetings without you can't just grab someone in the hallway i think i've mentioned that before it's just an ongoing frustration with this process but it's also nice to not have to commute so there's that little silver lining i guess the big the biggest issue right now i think facing k-12 during this legislative session is the budget i alluded to that in my last update the co-chairs of ways and means released their framework a couple of weeks ago the framework has the state school fund at 9.1 billion which is exactly the same number that the governor's requested budget had typically the number that comes from the co-chairs is a couple billion higher or i mean a couple hundred thousand higher than the 100 million sorry i'm getting there's two i need to add some zero typically higher and so starting the starting point for the co-chairs budget being the same as the governor's budget is is very concerning for the k-12 advocates and we're all in close communication about the best way to advocate i think there's a sentiment in salem or among legislators and the legislative fiscal office that we're somehow flush with cash because of carers and the american recovery act and all these other one-time opportunities that have come our way and so we are working on how do we tell the story that the state school fund is our operating budget it's our perennial you know this is what we pay teachers with and it's our per-pupil allotment versus some of the other the other buckets that we have and we're grateful for measure 98 the state the student success act and in particular the student investment account um but those are tied to other things and are um very focused dollars and equity focused investments in the case of the sia and uh career and technical education in the case of measure 98. so that's the i think the rub here is how do we communicate that in a way that makes sense to people who aren't paying attention to all of the things that are very specific to how we operate our schools in this um you know in the in the current environment with covid in the background but also going forward as we recover and as we continue to do the important work we would have been doing anyway but we're adding a layer of difficulty because of the pandemic so i just want to raise that with you because i think it's going to be a pretty hot topic for a while um the ways and means co-chairs are doing a road a virtual road show they do this every couple years when there's a biennial budget discussion um the they're doing it by congressional district congressional um congressional district three portland will be april 21st from 5 30 to 7 30. i'll share all the information on on how to watch it how to sign up we're working with our partners to um kind of carefully orchestrate the lineup of who we submit to to offer testimony because there's only going to be two hours and there's uh you know everyone who has anything they want to talk about related to the budget gets to come out and sign up so it's going to be limited to how many k12 people they're going to let speak so we're trying to coordinate so that we do so we make sure we get our people in um but i do think there will also be an opportunity to submit written testimony so again i'll share more information about that but that's going to be one of the few ways that board members and and superintendents and others in the education space can weigh in on the budget and we are also working closely with our chief financial officer and the school business officers association to make sure that we understand the impacts of what a 9.1 billion dollar budget means for pps and for all the other school districts there's no one that's going to be faring well under this scenario so the message is going to be pretty clear and the current kind of drum beat is 9.6 is the number we're shooting for so we'll see if we can get there i hope we can get there i hope we can get above 9-1 i feel i feel pretty good that we can get above that but um it's just going to be it's just going to be a fight and everything else you know there's a lot the deadline for scheduling public uh for scheduling and having work sessions on bills is the 13th which is tuesday so we're right at halfway the halfway mark in session um problematic bills this is that time when they sort of start to fall away there's a lot of good um little things i don't want me to to diminish them but they're just not the the budget is just the elephant in the room um there's a i know amy will director constance excuse me will be excited to know that they passed um in the senate senate bill 513 which is the civics education bill and we talked about um that in our it's mentioned in our legislative agenda there's a quite a few bills to get student voice in the um in the process which i think is great and specifically um getting students that have you know not been in the room
00h 20m 00s
so getting them involved in the pro in the legislative process and so there's a lot of good stuff out there but again i think what we where we have kind of had to i think focus our attention going forward right now is on the budget and i'm happy to answer any questions about anything in particular another one i just just because it's relevant to many of you that were on the board when when the pilot happened at grant high school around menstrual products in schools in high school um there's a bill right now that's i'm hope i submitted some written testimony i'm hoping moves because it's really good it's a really good bill but it has a fiscal so we're trying to work through you know what that could look like so that it doesn't just just die a slow death i hope it can we can work through something that would model what we've done because we know that that's an equity issue that's great thanks courtney any questions for courtney about current legislative items renee this is julia thanks for the update really appreciate it are you um working with the district student council at all um as a way to also have student voice uh from pbs show up um thank you for the question it's on my list we just got the list of of when those events were so not yet but yes i will let them know and engage them courtney i know i know chair lowry testified in her personal capacity i believe about um 16 and 17 year olds voting um any any uh prospect on that bill or updates oh good question i don't have the update but i'll get before the end of this meeting i will so i'll i'll report back on that but thank you yeah that's great the um there are a couple of bills running simultaneously recently around allowing younger younger than 18 16 and 17 year olds to vote in school board elections and then also lowering the voting age in general which i think is a tougher um hill to climb but i will let you know by the end of this meeting what the where that bill is i can't remember great thanks any other questions just along that lines so to allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote in school board elections that's like that can be done at a state at a state level obviously that just surprised i thought that's not set by some sort of national or federal standard it's a it's an incident state statute it can be changed oh okay interesting great okay all right thanks for the good night can i ask about the uh current service level is there any discussion about um fixing the current service level formula to reflect actual costs it's all part of the larger discussion rita director moore i'm sorry i'm very informal with you and i don't mean to be i've just worked with some of you for so long i prefer informal committees courtney i think you know that so i'm good okay well uh director moore uh good question yeah it's part of the conversation around um the nine one it's all it's a it's a really a fight with the legislative fiscal office we've you know continued to convert to uh spread the message to them and to others that if we don't if we split it if we do a split 50 50 it's not going to work we need it to be the 4951 or the 51.49 it's 49.51 yeah 49.51 sorry i had to think about it so yeah it's on it and it's definitely on our radar and um and i know that that's been an ongoing uh something that you've brought up before and that um all the advocates have brought up time and time again frankly so it's it's not just the 49th 51 split it's also the fact that it um underestimates the um the costs for those districts that have that had the foresight and the wherewithal to um to take up bonds for pers um is there is that even on the table it's not there's no bill to address that issue because it's really more of a conversation and i i don't know where that is right now but i can check in okay i'd appreciate that thank you before we move on um courtney i know this is on your radar but it's i think important for us all to think about making sure that the legislator legislature is aware of federal guidance around not supplanting state budget based on the federal appropriations and i think there is likely to be more specific language coming down
00h 25m 00s
um from the feds as uh attached to the esser provisions um where we'll actually have to to to provide um some kind of accountability and documentation that federal funds have not that state funds have not been supplanted um but we need to keep kind of raising that and making sure that there are no shenanigans going on at the legislature based on um you know the money that they see coming in from the feds yeah and report just about any of those conversations i'm happy to and uh while i've got the floor um director scott uh the 16 17 year old voting in school board elections bill isn't sitting in the senate rules committee and that committee is not bound by deadlines so there's more time to discuss it and sometimes things go to rules to not move and sometimes they go there for more time so i will keep you posted okay great thank you um okay we are almost uh half an hour in but actually um danny ledezma has joined us and sort of on this same agenda item as a legislative update not a state legislative update but a local legislative update i know danny wanted to just give a brief update on um uh city of portland's uh gun violence reduction issue is that right danny yeah just really quickly i apologize for for arriving late um the city council yesterday uh discussed a pretty far-reaching uh approach to reducing uh violence uh for the next year uh they allocated six million dollars across several program areas um and you know under the leadership of commissioner rubio uh they really sort of tried to take us a community-centered approach to violence prevention uh and so uh myself uh chair kafori uh most of our partners that we we partner with we all sort of provide a testimony in support of this approach um which is basically to to to try to do some more collaboration and coordination across city bureaus and acro across uh the the county um there was a counselor from the city of gresham that was there as well that also testified um and there are two areas that are probably of most interest to you all uh the first being they are going to invest a little over three million dollars into additional funding for grants to organizations that do uh some of the violence prevention as well as intervention uh through the office of uh viola of youth violence prevention uh that miss nike green runs um and the the general you know you i don't have to tell you this twice but the general research supports that the more we can have youth engaged in positive uh activities uh it goes a long way towards violence prevention and for too long uh we've been a little bit downstream of that funding and investment particularly for summer um so this three and a half uh million dollars that the city's investing will support the um the those grants and they're hoping to do the year-long grants to organizations uh that that we know you know very well so you heard uh testimony from joe mcferrin at the last board meeting he's one of the grantees that they work with pretty closely through poic um so we're looking forward to uh to partnering with them in that uh the other piece uh that is probably of interest to you is um the park ranger program so not as a replacement for police although um uh the the city is proposing an increased investment in the park ranger program to have more visible presence for park rangers at park sites not only to increase the hours during the day but also to provide graveyard shift coverage earlier in the year the city invested more funding to support the junior ranger program as well which is nice because our you know we certainly want our students who are interested in the outdoors and parks and that work to be able to do there their park rangers are led by vicente um who is who is really helpful with us during some of the hate crime incidents that happened at bridal mile uh in the park adjacent to bridal mile so we look forward to continuing to partner with them um as you'll hear in upcoming board meetings uh we'll be releasing uh a request for proposals for summer enrichment programming and where we are intend to to really sort of collaborate with both the city and our partners at multnomah county is in the sort of execution of these uh of these proposals uh for summer so we're making sure that youth of all ages are engaged in positive activities uh partnering with you know community-based culturally specific and multi-racial organizations to provide those those engaging uh sort of prevention programs that we know uh do a lot to reduce to to reduce crime overall and also to provide really positive spaces for students so you'll hear more from that we're really excited because
00h 30m 00s
with the city's investment and some of those programs more on the intervention side our investment in those programs on the prevention side and then multnomah county's investment in additional behavioral support behavioral health and mental health supports we think that we can go into the summer after you know the year that we've had with a lo you know with a lot less anxiety about sort of the violence to come because we've got we've got solutions and and uh not only are we but our our sister jurisdictions are investing uh heavily and wanting to to work on the prevention side so um i just wanted to let you know uh we worked with you know commissioner rubio commissioner ryan commissioner maps commissioner hardesty and also the mayor's office was supportive um as well and so i think um you know i just wanted to make sure that you all knew about all of those connections and how we're really trying to be good partners and make sure that we're all uh in alignment um and i think that's it great thank you danny thanks for that update that is that is um yeah i'm glad andrew yeah can i ask a question am i coming through better now yes we can hear you great thank you okay great um danny thanks for the update i'm really glad to hear um about the nimble response um from the city and the district and love the partners it sounds like that we potentially have lined up did you say that's coming to us through contracts or it's going you know in what form is it um or does the district already have the contracts in place um to move ahead for the summer programming we have we have existing partnerships but this is really um we're trying to to really have like a robust set of uh programs for a summer and so to be able to do that with the with the amount of investment that we're proposing we we wanted to do a call for proposals so we have we're anticipating that we'll we will continue to support partners that we already have existing partnerships we'll probably support partners that we haven't had a realist a relationship with yet uh and then i anticipate that there will be lots of um lots of new partnerships that are formed that may that may look differently so um we are you know we're of course going to be advertising to our set of contractors that we work with our resj partners as well as our sun partners but we've also been uh gathering lists from the office of violence prevention from uh different parts of the county uh so their their public health department their um their youth their uh juvenile uh youth pro department i'm getting all the departments wrong but uh not just the department of youth county of county uh county services human services so uh so so we're trying to make sure that we're spreading it really wide and we're going through the formal procurement process so that we can execute contracts uh with folks that we don't have an existing relationship with so we'll need to go through that process and what's the size of the funds that we have that's going to be utilized here we're still we're still finalizing that number so i i want to i want to get you the accurate number uh we need to take into account uh custodial and uh some uh some of our internal facilities so i'll be able to get that number to you uh shortly we're i we were we're still finishing up uh but we're hoping to you know obviously use funding from the state and from from federal resources great look forward to hearing more about that thank you okay can i just clarify um am i correct in thinking that um pps is not going to get any of the grant money from the city that everything is going to have to be financed through the pps budget is that is that accurate uh i guess so in terms of the six million dollar investment uh those will those are all the investments were all proposed either through partnerships or through city bureaus that's correct just to be clear about your question rita i think so the city's putting new money into these programs that's that's going to go directly to those programs and i think her danny i heard danny say that we we are also committing some dollars to programs that will come from from from our budget right but we're not getting any money from the city right that's correct okay okay i want to move on i was just going to mention just i buried the lead during the legislative update that the senate approved the money for the summer programming earlier today so that's now headed to the governor's desk so we'll be hearing more about the rollout of the summer dollars and what the um what the allotment looks like for pps in the coming weeks that's the federal money that's being passed through the state that you're referring to or that state
00h 35m 00s
money no that's that's state money oh okay because the federal 200 that's 200 right that's the 250 million summer program dollars and child care dollars that the governor and the ways and means committees worked on okay i want to move on to the next item on the agenda because it is a big one um and an update on um the i5 rose quarter project and i don't know courtney am i turning it over to you or is uh i can get us started and director brynn edwards can can think up um so yeah i think the we've been involved in this the school board has weighed in on the i5 project for a couple years um i know director bailey is very familiar he and i had a road trip to albany one time to testify to the otc that was fun he bought me he bought me a hamburger on the way back um anyway just just an aside um we so we've been involved we've the board has passed resolutions a couple of times once in march of 2019 and once in december of 2019 to say hey we would really like to do an eis these are the reasons that we have concerns we want you to delve a little deeper into it and study this and share out that data so that we know what the potential impacts are going to be like for tubman and its surrounding community that the oregon transportation commission chose to do an ea not an eis which is a light it's kind of an ea it's a it's a lighter dive um and then then kovit hit and we kind of you know we were focused on other things um director brian edwards has been uh sitting on the executive steering committee of the project for maybe eight months now i i i'm getting all of my calendars wrong but i think it's about eight months um that was once the otc directed odot to create a few more community outreach opportunities so they have a they had a community uh a community group i can't remember the name of that group because it was disbanded and is now the historic albina advisory group and then they created and then the esc the executive steering committee and they also have a cac the cac and i can't remember what that stands for maybe it's community advisory committee so we've been sitting at that table with a number of people including the minority contractors um the the truckers i think are on it there's a bunch of other stakeholders that sit on the esc that are relevant to the project and then there's also a conversation a separate conversation that hinges on the project which is the highway cover or cap conversation and i attend those meetings to track kind of that conversation and recently there's been more talk about what is the tubman situation looking like and i'll so i'll maybe turn it over to director brim edwards um at the last esc meeting on march 23rd or 22nd nate mccoy from the minority contractor specifically asks hey you know what's the strategy from the district and what about the community process and is there a plan and i think that's kind of a question that's still sitting there out there so uh director bruh edwards maybe you want to speak to some of that since you were in the room and at that table yeah thanks thanks for the recap um courtney um i'll say that pps has had um two primary there there's a lot of different interests at the table um and reasons why either people support the project or oppose it um i think it would be most accurate to describe that pps has probably two primary interests um one relates to the impact on our facilities and the second would be the caps and um for the purposes of this meeting i want to focus primarily on impact on our facilities primarily harriet tubman middle school on the caps um there has been a process that's ongoing that we really we haven't been the driver of but we have been i want to say supportive of the uh requests and the work that uh albino vision trust has done to date on this and i think my uh impression is that that is moving ahead in a way that um it's moving ahead with it i think in a way that's aligned with what the issues that albino vision trust um raised at the at the onset and that um i think we should assume that that's on track until it isn't um
00h 40m 00s
for right now so then there's the issue of the impact on our facilities and the primary impact um clearly would be on harriet tubman and the last meeting i thought was um a really interesting meeting because they did bring in sort of their peer review group but as noted i was quite disappointed in odot and the presentation and because that fundamentally they're still making the argument that this project will make things better which as the previous speakers during public comment have um you know pointed out some of the underlying issues with that assertion but the reality is taking bad air and making it slightly better is not healthy air for our students um and then and so that when pressed at the last meeting an acknowledgement that um that that wasn't the standard that they benchmarked against it was just would it be better so it's from uh maybe really bad to less bad as a standard so that's one thing and then the second piece is we had more visibility to the planning and design and this sort of you know continuing the moving forward um with the plan that moves the freeway even closer to our school and not having really any answers um as to you know what the construction impact would be on the school and i think also sort of most significantly there were a number of other partners at the table who were specifically tri-met who were quite surprised about the design um as as well and so the point for people where we are right now with pbs they asked for a presentation on sort of our view on the impact and sort of what community outreach we've done and i think i primarily tried to set expectations about the district staff coming and doing a presentation about impacts on our facilities because you know we're right in the middle of reopening and that is you know for the school district sort of our highest priority um but it it would be important i think for um the board to get a briefing um on it and to set a direction so that we can um speak as a board about um whether um what direction we want to take early on um and i'll credit director bailey with putting on the table a sort of an estimated number of what it might cost to to move tubman and i know district staff has been asked to get sort of drill down on on that number so we have more than a ballpark but you know at the end of the day it appears and we need to have a point of view as a district that this project is going to if it proceeds is going to really make that site um not a an appropriate site long term for a school now would it be appropriate for some other use um potentially you know absolutely it's um you know still an important property but as a for school use not likely and so developing a point of view that is you know the district leadership including the board but it also has input from our school community um and and then and the neighboring community is going to be important courtney did i summarize that piece perfectly really great that was great yeah no that was really helpful thanks um let me let me open it up um to questions i i have a few but i'll i'll wait let me open it up to questions from um board members and and maybe rita we'll start with you and then open it up to others if you if you have any questions yeah thank you um so um a general comment
00h 45m 00s
and then an actual question um so i was i was a little surprised that um we didn't get supporting documents um to accompany the power the odot powerpoint um and and i was told that there weren't any um and i was given the link to the odot site so i went in and looked at previous meetings and discovered that essentially none of the meetings have a lot of supporting materials which is a little concerning and it's apparently mostly done through powerpoint presentations that are remarkably content free as far as i could tell so that's concerning to me um my actual question is um apparently on the march 22nd steering committee meeting um pps was an agenda item um and i i appreciate the summary but was there an actual statement that was issued like what was our presentation yeah there wasn't a that's probably an overstatement it was that we had been asked to come to the april meeting and they just wanted us a response of whether we'd be whether we'd be coming to the april meeting with a presentation and what courtney and i the discussion in advance was um this is not the time to be asking um dan jung and the and the facilities team to be putting together a presentation um right in the middle of reopening okay um so it was it was literally um this is what we've asked of pbs and courtney and i um and we talked to dan um in advance as well um but it just was that um that would be challenging for the district to cover and come up with that mostly acknowledgement that we would come back in april okay okay um so so does that mean you're you're wanting the board to come up with i mean and i i appreciate this i i'm all in favor of this um but does is is there a deadline by which you want the board to kind of come up with some sort of direction yeah we ideally um as soon as we get schools reopened like to engage the board around what we would set as our um sort of direction for you know it's going to be district staff um in terms of what we want to ask of odot and it's not it's not really asking this executive um steering kit because it's an advisory committee so that's it let's just be clear um they otc and odot made very clear that this is like advisory and it really doesn't have any decision making capacity so what we would like is the point of view from the district of what we're going to tell odot is that you know what we perceive as the impact and how we think it should be addressed okay and i guess my my last question is is very very concrete um so with the expansion of the the proposed expansion of the um of i-5 um to further uh you know a further incursion onto um uh harriet tubman property what is the actual distance between the the highway or the or the wall and the school at the closest point i so i don't know that we have that information at the top of at our fingertips i know i've asked joe crawler to join us because he said it's on our little internal technical team and that is a question that we want the answer to and joe i don't know if you have anything you want to add but i think we're trying to figure that out the other thing i'd say is you know odot has offered to do like one-on-one briefings um courtney and i um think it's going to be important that it be um a public briefing with materials in advance and so the what they've designed because um it feels like the project is a little well it's fairly opaque um to your point director director moore um
00h 50m 00s
and i say the standard that they're using on air quality is um not a standard that we agreed to nor do i think that most of us would um i don't know for everybody but not the standard that we would want for our students and again um to date odot has not been able to articulate during the construction phase of the project which we know would have really significant impacts as well on the site of what the mitigate what the proposed mitigation if there's a middle school there uh what they would propose okay uh amy or scott amy go ahead so um i do not want or feel like i need any more information from odot i think it's time for us to just send a letter that says um we uh we these impacts are obvious to us to our students and you know if in order for this project to go through it's clear to us that you're going to need to purchase this property and then we get our ducks in a row in terms of the valuation for the property we already know that there's going to be some taking involved and especially it's my understanding that it's encroaching even further than was previously explained and so i mean i don't think there's any reason for us to get any more mired in this process or do briefings or anything we know that it is not an appropriate site for our students given the impact that is predicted both short term and long term so i would like to free us up from this sort of bureaucratic morass and make our position really clear to odot as soon as possible um that they're gonna need to to buy this asset from us um in order to move forward and i think that with a very minimal amount of time from a decent land use attorney um we can come up with some pretty pretty compelling points as to why that's clearly necessary um so uh i just i just want to really caution us from just any more briefings any more questions any of that like we know that that this is this is going to have an intolerable impact for our students and then the other piece is that we need to share with them that we're embarking on um a community-driven process to identify you know what we're doing in north portland with our center for black student excellence and that the relocation of harriet tubman is and and should be uh likely a part of that and so the sooner we can resolve this matter with them and they can you know provide for us by buying that asset and we can put those funds toward the relocation of harriet tubman that the sooner we can fold that into that other process that is going to get underway here shortly so um i just feel really strongly that we need to act quickly we've done enough we we we don't need any more information to know what the impacts are and um we need to be really clear with with them thanks amy appreciate that scott um yeah i want to agree with i think everything amy said director constance um i don't understand what we would say any differently to the advisory committee that would have any impact on anything that we haven't already put in writing or said in testimony um yeah well we we need to do the due diligence of what the the cost would be what we're anticipating it would be um in addition um i don't think that odot is actually the uh well they may be the project uh be driving the project they're not the ones that would have the money to um purchase this purchase the school um why is that they buy right away all the time and this is right away they're encroaching well i don't think they have 100 million dollars 80 to 100 million dollars in this project budget well then they're gonna need to find it if they're going to want to put that freeway right next to that school right well that's been part of the the conversations that we've been having they've already been i mean we're already
00h 55m 00s
i think on the record of saying it's 80 to 100 million i mean that's that's already there and and again you know tactically i'm not against somebody going and testifying um [Music] just let people know and the other thing i would add is since apparently odot has been planning on this lane expansion for a couple of years no this isn't just something new that popped out they've been completely disingenuous and that's a kind word uh with us and with the community as a whole um correct me if i'm wrong i think maybe you can nod joe that there was an accompanying memo to the map of the widening that was dated 2018 for internal discussion only um that's at least yes there's there's a there's a head nod so um you know this is just another um just another breach of trust by oda the the other thing to consider too though is that like when we make a demand that they they buy us out i mean they then have a valuable asset that is has some utility for other purposes and there are a lot of people in the community talking about some kind of interesting ideas about what that might be maybe even in partnership with odot like a workforce training center or something um the collaboration between different different government entities and and not to get too tangled up here but the the federal infrastructure bill coming down the pike or measure coming down the pike has a lot of money in it for workforce training and this is an idea that um that is starting to get some traction in our community right to be housed at the tubman site so i don't know why anybody would want to house something there with the air quality so bad and getting worse if the project goes through we know now the back of the school isn't safe um and i think with you carve off another however many feet it is the front of the school isn't going to be breathable i have a couple of questions sorry go ahead julie i was just going to say we that's what we've presented throughout this en entire engagement with them um and i think it's a matter of us having something you know can't present a bill of uh here's what it would cost if we don't know if we don't know what it would be what it would cost to build a new middle school i also believe that um there's a a conversation that we need to structure and that can be done this in a short order with the um i say once we get through the reopening with the harriet tubman school community um because i i don't think it's respectful for us to for people to read in the paper we're demanding that they buy this the school when we haven't had a conversation yet um and i'm not saying that i i definitely believe that needs to happen it just we do need to have a conversation with the community so that they're aware of it and that they can be part of that conversation um thanks um how much does the project total the oda project roughly does anyone know offhand well it's a moving target it was originally 750 million and it's gone up to like eight or nine or eight or eight fifty i was curious yeah i thought it was originally around five and now it's up to eight and it was four 450 or 435 originally and now it's beyond 800. i was trying to get a sense of magnitude um we talked to uh julia you mentioned the air quality and i'm just i'm curious given some of the testimony earlier so so and i really appreciated your point i thought it was a good one of odat saying oh the air quality will be a little bit better and and you were sort of questioning you know is that really the appropriate metric right going from really really bad to just a little bit better i have another question though do we do we trust their data right so um do is there any way for us to validate the underlying assumptions that they made that even even to sort of get a sense of when they said it's a little bit better do we believe that it is a little bit better or is that even a question well i'm not a i'm not a um environmental scientist sorry i'm not asking you not asking you to validate that i'm asking is there a
01h 00m 00s
way for us to validate that um i would think so um and i'll just also point out that the when there was a discussion about the guiding criteria and i proposed language that um the air quality be the standard via health healthy air standard um that odot and um suggested that they wanted language that would would be that it would be better better than the current um and that is what um the executive steering committee adopted i voted against that um but they've they're clearly attached to their standard of better but i think that i think there's two weaknesses in the the standard one um whether the underlying their underlying numbers are correct and then whether it's going to be better and then second whether that's even the right standard to have set for the project yeah okay i i would be interested in even if it's even if it's an outside you know group that's that's done some work on this just just you know who is sort of validating that and kind of gets back to these questions of induced demand and if those things have been ignored but we took that into account you know does that impact the overall air quality numbers and because you know i i think it's one we should validate that even even their initial um analysis whether it's accurate and then two whether they're using the right metric i think they're both really important questions um andrew joe how's it stand up oh yeah go ahead joe crowley right oh yeah scotty members of the community good evening i've been tasked by dan young to find an environmental contractor that can basically do that peer review and or set our own metrics that are applicable to schools we have pbs engineering and environmental on contract uh phenomenon for a long time for a variety of uses and we've also um looking at a scope um uh that is a little more expansive and so we may go with pbs um or another another provider but that'll be coming along shortly and uh also have asked for odot to provide more than just an aerial or overhead view of the project because it was in my opinion that um you know side view or not close uh would just bring a better orientation uh especially when we're talking about the the walls right you know and relative to the size of a car relative to the size building and the closeness um but in short on the question about can we validate or can we compare to their environmental studies um we are on on track to do that great thanks joe no i really appreciate that um sort of i know a lot of you've been working on this for a long time so i'm sorry if this is a remedial question but are what are our points of influence in this process right i mean i appreciate you know julia serving on the executive steering committee i think it's funny that that's an advisory body though usually steering committees are a little bit more than that but i guess that's how odot is to find it um yeah yeah and it was much disputed because you have um i mean the the heads of that a lot of the local jurisdictions um serving on it and it's like well it's just advisory and otc was you know very clear like they weren't and you know the question was like is it even worth serving on it and i think some groups have decided um you know very publicly not to serve on it because of that capacity so you know the decision making is really ultimately going to be otc right and i guess that's and i'm happy i can have a follow-up with with either you or courtney just just to sort of bring me up to speed on it but i mean i you know the school board does not and the school district does not have any official approval um of this project correct i don't know about yes but i i wonder i i don't know if we have to like approve if they're going to encroach further into on determined property we would have to allow that right we wouldn't i'm guessing there's a yeah there's a yeah uh eminent domain you know um statute that that applies there and the only reason i'm asking and again and but i think it is important publicly that we talk about both you know what's our formal and then what's our informal you know influence in this and i think my understanding of this project is our formal influence is pretty limited our in sorry did i say that our formal influence is limited our informal influence though it can be significant and i think that's just as an intergovernmental committee and then as a board just you know talking about what what are those ways and you know it's through the engagement and and there may be some legal you know action as well if it comes down to that but just sort of understanding
01h 05m 00s
that both from so we understand it but also the community understands i think is important i will just um i'll just sort of i think it's a really um i'm going to use i'm going to use the buildback better language right but you know part of um you know we're hearing a lot of the federal infrastructure but but locally as well and reimagining oregon and all of this is you know my mind comes comes together in terms of it's not enough to simply mitigate right the impacts that might happen and and i agree with with others that have said it's not enough to just simply say well it's a little bit better i mean we're undergoing a revolution in terms of how government thinks about these projects and it's a long overdue revolution but it's this whole idea that we have to do more for historically underrepresented you know communities this is a historically underrepresented community and a school and by doing more there there is a restorative justice component to this to this work and i feel like a lot of governments are are sort of waking up to this and going down this road and it does not feel like odot has caught up and so i think part of this is is using our influence publicly to talk about it but also our influence with the state legislature and influence with the governor's office to to to make odot do this i mean this is not that revolutionary right to sort of look at a project like this and say we can't just think about it in terms of of the highway widening or or you know that we have to think more broadly and that's hard for organizations to break out of but but again they won't be the first right governments all over the region all over the country are doing this and sort of saying no no we have to take into account that oh not only you know does this make it inappropriate for a school used to be this close it was inappropriate when we did this back in the 40s and 50s and 60s so how do we rectify that historical wrong the generations of children that have gone through this school and suffered as a result of that air quality and and and how do we and and maybe you know the way to to make good on that is to actually figure out where 80 or 100 million dollars is going to come from to move this school and see that positive benefit and i don't really think that is that was a big leap in the 80s it's a big leap in the 90s it's not a big leap today for the way governments need to be thinking about infrastructure projects so um i i i really appreciated the sort of conversation about our next steps and and and and you know i i will just tell you i i think we should have some more conversation about it i do think a board briefing would be helpful you know and and and director constantly i appreciate your point of look we we've been around this block before and what we need is a strong statement i think from a public perspective hearing from odot having a chance for us as a board to ask them the hard questions directly in a public forum um i think is really beneficial even if we've already kind of asked those questions before and we sort of know what their answer is going to be i think there is some benefit to that um so i i think getting that i think uh director edwards your point about um you know the community engagement is really important as as much as as we as a as a board might feel like we want to go down a road we do need to engage the community i don't think it's going to be any surprise where the community is on this but at least figuring out what that looks like and and recognizing we're in the middle of reopening right now so that's kind of challenging maybe i missed the answer to the question though in terms of timing um is there a deadline by which we need by which odot's going to be taking some action that we can't miss or we shouldn't miss um to answer that question i don't i think we have a range i say we're primarily trying to get beyond april just given everything that's happening um i want to go back to your your point about um how things have changed and i do think there wouldn't have been this conversation at all but for pps just wielding its sort of moral authority here and saying you can't just move ahead with this project um and and run over us um and they have set up this larger structure um and i i fundamentally support what you've said about the different context of today because the primary odot argument is this project actually will make things a little bit better and really the conversation that needs to happen happen is about the original sin um because it's it's about what happened to tubman when when otaka dot could just do what they wanted to do and they just you know placed the freeway right there so it's not just about well it's just going to be incrementally more it's about fundamentally what odot did originally and this is just further exacerbating that original action they took um and i i do think that uh the the conversations around infrastructure it's a it's a different conversation um and to set ourselves up i think we need the
01h 10m 00s
information that um joe had just we should have the facts because they'll be saying this is make this is making things better um and we need to be able to have uh the facts um and the impacts on our students i do think we need to have that community meeting even though we may not be surprised again i don't nobody should wake up in the morning and read a story in the paper or hear something on the radio about tubman and you know we're you know we've decided to move it and we're asking odot to pay for it um that needs to be a community conversation um and and lastly i do think we we can put the numbers together and if if we if we have a solid set of numbers and we have had the conversation with the community um the the the informal role we have is to be to be able to have those kind be able to have those conversations can i um can i just add a little bit um i agree with pretty much what everybody has said um um but i'd also like to mention the extra added layer of um pps's um articulated commitment to be a champion of um kind of morally acceptable response to climate change um we've made several statements publicly as a district as an abu and as a board and um the board the policy committee is right now considering a pretty expansive and um aggressive uh policy uh for um climate crisis response so i think the you know the dimension that hasn't been mentioned yet today is around the impact that it expanded i5 would have on climate change and that this is going in exactly the wrong direction um so i i appreciate that our uh principal focus certainly the sort of the um the initially animating focus was harriet tubman but i also think we need to put it into the broader context of climate change so so along those lines i think there is value in having a a board discussion um around these issues okay we are 15 minutes over go ahead scott and your students will expect of us and hold us to that standard i do want to say with the you know kind of getting our numbers um my limited experience in transportation impacts arguments um in in development is one side has their numbers another side has their numbers they never agree um i i think it's important that we we come up with something um it will have to i think challenge their their traffic analysis as well as the environmental impact of that traffic i think the the notion that they'll build walls to help keep the pollution out as well as noise [Music] there's no way to predict the wind patterns around structures like that it could end up making things worse um so there's there's a lot of unknowns in there that will have to um i think cop2 in this process that odot has not copped to um okay yeah to the extent that we go ahead and do that uh it's really and and i think we should bill oda for it they're not going to pay for it but you know we shouldn't have to do this we should not have to do any of this okay thank you for this conversation i think in the next steps um are to um discuss whether uh i guess the timing of potentially having o.com and and give us a briefing on the project um julia do you want to to deal with uh board leadership on scheduling that or or like half the board leadership is here right now or do you want me to follow up as the igc chair um scott do you need something in writing or will you take this to the agenda setting meeting okay okay so i'm i'm confused uh director constance did i hear you say you weren't
01h 15m 00s
interested in having oh dot com in brief us so just wanted to find if that's what people want i just feel like we have the information we know what the impacts currently are we know they're going to be exacerbated and it's time for us to make a strong statement to them um i just i think we've spent a lot of time on something that's very peripheral to our mission and um you know we need to just move on our interests but if other people want to you know have them come and do a briefing fine i don't really see the value now well i the the value that i well first of all i think um the individuals on the board need to know what our our ask is but also ultimately this isn't like odot's not going to come up with the money you know like the house speaker is you know the governor's office um i mean somebody has to put this on the list for you know for the the infrastructure list and you know i think we're um having having our facts down and our arguments um like you know you know we need to be able to say here is what odot is planning on doing and to date it is um some been somewhat hard to get them on the record for exactly how this project is going to impact tubman so scott i think the question for you and chair lowry is just is in terms of as board leadership do you want to put this on i think you've heard i think director constant has a good point you've heard from julian and me and and i think rita sort of expressed you know that there's some value in it so i'll just i'll turn that over to you all in agenda setting um it sounds sounds good i will figure out we'll take that forward and uh and i think um sooner is better but also we need to get some of that data as well from the team from the technical team yeah um and then i think the question after that is um yeah so i actually think i think figuring out if we're gonna do uh that that odop briefing for the board public briefing and then having a conversation of when we want to um engage with the tubman community and and again being respectful of how that fits into our reopening plan and staff um um commitments right now i think is going to be important um really appreciate this um update thank you um for for this and the the conversation and more to come we're we're about 20 minutes over but i did want to give um courtney a chance to just give us a really high level overview um of the federal infrastructure package and how it might impact schools and and then maybe do a quick round of questions around that um in terms of of again where where our influence what our role can be um yeah yeah i'll be really brief um obviously we all have been hearing a lot about infrastructure from the president and congress right now there's a the um i sent you guys the bill that is the sort of baseline bill that they're using to sort of start the conversation about school infrastructure um and i know this is music to director constance ears because she's been talking about school infrastructure a lot over the last few years um but there's a 100 billion dollars right now is kind of the number that's floating around 15 billion would be grants and the other 50 would be bonding um there's also and i've been in touch with blooming hours office this week in defazio's office too actually because they have surface transportation reauthorization and there's other places to find money for things so i'm just kind of paying attention to those those bills um and keeping in close touch with our delegation about where we can be most influential in our advocacy advocacy and i'll continue to reach out to our local folks uh and then of course we're involved with the council for the great city schools and um so i'm i'm on regular calls with them to see how things are playing out and how we can be helpful so i'll just keep you all updated there's not a lot of information yet but um it's definitely a topic of huge concern for all urban districts and really any school district because we all know that our our facilities are old and we need to um inject them with uh more modernization dollars yeah so i could and this is this great and and i don't mean in any way to look a gift horse in the mouth it's long overdue and and it'd be great i just want to be clear though 50 billion dollars of bonding capacity is simply a way of making bonds a little bit less expensive right they're still i just i wanted to make sure that everyone's clear on that that that part of anything i i appreciate that and i think you're right and also it's a starting point so i think that's the conversation that's going to have to happen um as you know the months i don't know how long this is going to take i don't know what the timeline is exactly yet but um you know certainly there's also there's also other um like seismic and hvac dollars i'm told in some other
01h 20m 00s
places so i think we just need to it's not this is not a one and done this is multiple places to play um on these conversations about how do we modernize our buildings and our facilities so but but i'll let you guys know how things shake out and you know as we i had a good conversation this week about earmarks because earmarks 10 years ago when i worked in congress i was in charge of earmarks for senator merkley and that was when they still had them and then they went away and now they're making their way back and they will not be a part of the infrastructure package i've confirmed but um there some there are some member um member uh requests coming through but there's they're very very few and we really can't fit into any of those buckets and this is this was the case long ago too but i just wanted you to know that i i did do the research to find out that that was probably not an option um but i'll keep you know if that changes i'll certainly you know be in touch with dan and the team but i think that's probably not going to happen for this for um member requests will not be a place for us to go after dollars those are usually last last in dollars and um very small amount of money and only usually only a few projects per member so great any any questions for courtney um just to say i was contacted by a school community that was trying to get merkley to do an earmark for their school i know who you're talking about and i've been in touch with that parent this week and he's wonderful yeah oh yeah yeah but uh we are we are a school system great anyone else have any questions courtney let us know how we can um how we can be helpful in that in terms of with our local delegation obviously our local delegation will be supportive of this but um you know we're really lucky right we have we have a great delegation that supports what we do and and um and definitely supports improving our infrastructure so you know we should we should thank our lucky stars for that but yeah well and the delegation yeah that is supportive but also an obligation that's in um positions of power in congress and so to the extent there are we we do it is very i mean the most effective way to get changes are is when they hear from local constituents so if there are even if there are things that would help nationally we can actually be the voice that we and we can also connect with our counterparts in other districts that might be for example in de fazio's district because he's the tni chair transportation and infrastructure structure infrastructure chair in the house so you know are there ways that we can push uh you know for jay to because he may not listen to us because we're not as constituent i'm just thinking there are other ways to get around it so yeah great okay any um any other things for this committee i appreciate everyone's willingness to go long i think it was a good good conversation tonight hey andrew one other thing um just on the community engagement um who would be the appropriate person i don't know if that's courtney to give the um jonathan and shanice yeah um a heads up that that's something just because uh i know they're everybody's got full plates but to get that just flag for them as that's a conversation that needs to happen i'll do that great thank you thank you it's on jonathan's radar but i'll make sure that i recap this with him okay thank you everybody with that we will adjourn the integrator committee meeting


Sources

Retrieved from "https://wiki.sunshinepps.org/index.php?title=2021-04-08_PPS_School_Board_Intergovernmental_Committee_Meeting&oldid=10179"
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Center for Transparent Analysis and Policy
Powered by MediaWiki
Powered by Semantic MediaWiki